Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Middlesbrough (West Division), in the room of Frank Kingsley Griffith, esquire, M.C. (Judge of a County Court).—[Sir Percy Harris.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (REMUNERATION).

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet come to a decision in regard to the equalisation, in the manner he has indicated, of the remuneration of conscientious objectors with that of the pay of those serving in the Forces; and how soon any new provisions will become operative?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am not yet in a position to make a further statement on this matter.

Mr. Etherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman press this matter to an early decision, because the present anomalous position is giving grave cause for concern?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I am getting on with it as fast as I can; but I am not being assisted in this difficult and technical job by the action of a number of local authorities in taking the law into their own hands.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman also see that steps are taken to bring about equalisation of remuneration for Members of this House and for other members of society?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

MACHINE TOOL FITTERS.

Mr. Charles Brown: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that skilled machine-tool fitters of 26 years of age are still being called up for Army service; whether he has received any representations from the trade unions concerned; and what further steps he proposes to take to prevent essential war industries being deprived of their labour in this way?

Mr. Bevin: Machine-tool fitters are reserved at and above the age of 18, and I am not aware that such men are being called up for military service. If my hon. Friend will furnish particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will make inquiries.

ALIENS.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the aliens entered upon the Supplementary Register of the Central Register have been interned; whether, on internment, their names were removed from the Register; and whether steps are now being taken to have them replaced on the Register in order that advantage may be taken of the service they are capable of rendering to the national cause?

Mr. Bevin: The number of persons on the Central Register of Aliens whose internment had up to a recent date been notified to that Register is 332. The names of interned persons are not removed from the Register, though they cannot, of course, be considered for employment so long as they remain interned.

Mr. White: Were adequate inquiries made as to the loyalty of these persons before they were put on the Central Register; and, if so, why were they interned at all?

Mr. Bevin: That is a question for the Home Secretary, not for me.

CARDROOM OPERATIVES.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has noted the protest of the cardroom operatives against being debarred from accepting other employment when their own does not provide them with a livelihood; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?

Mr. Bevin: Cardroom operatives are strongly encouraged, in the national interest, to take work in their own occupation, but they are not debarred from taking other urgent Government work for which they are suitable.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the unions concerned, because they have passed a resolution of protest on the lines mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Bevin: They will probably read the answer.

UNEMPLOYED.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour the result of the review of the Register so as to ascertain the suitability for employment of all persons who have been unemployed for a month or more; and whether, in order to show the true state of unemployment, the Register will no longer include the unemployable?

Mr. Bevin: The review covers a large number of persons, and has not yet proceeded far enough to enable me to publish results. The point raised in the last part of the Question will receive consideration. I would point out, however, that experience is proving that in present circumstances opportunities of employment can often be found, by way of training or otherwise, for men who have been unemployed for long periods.

MUNITION WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the disparity that exists between the pay of the armed Forces and some munition workers who do not run the same risk, and can he see his way clear to limit that of the latter, in order that cheap cigarettes and postage can be provided for the former?

Mr. Bevin: The wages of civilian workers are regulated by industrial agreements, which I do not propose to disturb, and with regard to which I have recently made an Order, with the consent of all parties, providing for reference to arbitration in the last resort. I do not propose to interfere with the cordial relations existing in industry, which have contributed so much to good will and increased production of vital munitions and exports recently. The question of the remuneration of the armed Forces is

a separate matter, and must be dealt with on its own merits.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that this war may be lost or won on the economic front, and that the wages paid to the munition workers are four or five times as great as the wages agreed to by the unions?

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman not suggest that the hon. Member should bring his own salary down to the level of the soldier's pay?

Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, what about the income of the hon. Gentleman himself?

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR FORCE.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he is making to secure that the services of friendly aliens now resident in this country are used to the best advantage?

Mr. Bevin: Under arrangements hitherto in force, foreigners desiring employment have been invited to register at local offices of my Department, and to take employment subject to being granted a permit. These arrangements, although supplemented by the efforts of the various refugee organisations, have not so far succeeded in providing the maximum opportunity to our friends from abroad to render service. Accordingly, I have decided, with a view to organising the man-power of Allied nations and of other well-disposed persons of foreign nationality in this country, to set up an International Labour Branch, as part of the Employment Department of my Ministry. This branch will have its headquarters at a separate office in London. The staff will include persons able to speak the languages of the countries concerned, and I am confidently expecting to secure the co-operation of representatives of the different nations in making a success of this new organisation. In particular, I hope to have the advice and assistance of an advisory committee, including trade union representatives from foreign countries. It is my hope that we shall thus get valuable assistance in establishing the bona fides of well-disposed foreigners and in bringing sympathetic consideration to bear on individual cases. It will be part of the functions of the new International Labour Branch to obtain full knowledge of the persons available for employment and to seek suitable


openings for them in industrial or other work. The co-operation of Allied Governments and other national authorities in this country will be sought.

Mr. Hall: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, might I ask whether he thinks it will be possible to start the operation of the scheme in a short time?

Mr. Bevin: The Department is in process of being established to-day. We have been fortunate in securing the services and help in building it up of Mr. Scott, from Geneva, who did the migration work and the Allied mercantile work, and who is a well-known ex-Indian civil servant. I am confident that, with his knowledge, he can help us to bring it into being very quickly.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that Englishmen have preference?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly; the policy of the Department is to see that Britishers have preference. But I am extremely short of skilled men at present, and in utilising the skill and ability of a number of these men, I shall actually be putting Britishers to work.

Mr. Wedgwood: Will there be on this committee any representation of the Austrians, or the Austrian Centre, and will those people who are not interned be able to apply for employment?

Mr. Bevin: In answer to the first part of the question, I do not know who will be on the committee. I am working, in connection with the establishment of the committee, through the Trades Union Congress, with the assistance of the employers' organisations. With regard to the second part of the question, I shall have nothing to do with the people who are interned. The question of release from internment is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My duty will begin when he has completed his, and has passed them on to me to utilise their services.

Mr. G. Strauss: May we take it from the reply that in the category of friendly aliens are included friendly aliens from Germany and Austria?

Mr. Bevin: I do not propose to use the term "aliens" or "refugees." As far as this part of the work is concerned, it is

my intention to call them, once they are passed on to me from the security Department, the International Labour Force, and neither aliens nor refugees.

PROVINCIAL TOWNS (LODGING CHARGES).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that excessive charges by landladies in provincial towns is one of the main obstacles in preventing London workers taking up Government work in the provinces; and whether he will take any steps to overcome this difficulty?

Mr. Bevin: My information does not lead me to think that this difficulty is as widespread as my hon. Friend suggests. I shall be glad to examine any evidence which he cares to send me as to the conditions in particular localities.

BRICK-MAKING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he proposes to take any action to re-establish the brick-making industry, in view of the present brick shortage and the urgent needs of Defence and Air-Raid Precautions works?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Negotiations are at present proceeding with representative bodies in the brick-making industry with a view to securing increased production of bricks to meet national requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS WORKERS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Labour whether the provision that men called up for the Services shall be reinstated in their former positions after the war applies to those who, having registered under the Armed Forces Act, express a preference and are accepted for full-time service in the air-raid precautions services?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Cocks: Why is the distinction made?

Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend asked me the question whether it does apply, and I said "No, Sir, it does not."

Mr. Cocks: Will the Minister give the reason for the anomaly?

Mr. Bevin: They are not in the Act.

SHELTERS.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers have now been given to rural, urban and county authorities in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire to provide, or assist in providing, private domestic shelters, communal shelters and public shelters; and the basis for the reimbursement of the respective authorities?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): These are questions which, as my hon. Friend is aware, have come into prominence as the result of the extension of shelter schemes to areas not hitherto specified under Part III of the Civil Defence Act. The arrangement made in Glamorgan is that public shelters to an agreed limit remain the responsibility of the county authority, and that other shelters, including all unit or multiple unit domestic shelters, are to be provided by the district councils. Arrangements in Monmouth are under discussion between the county and the district councils. As to finance, the position is, broadly, that the cost of materials used in the construction of domestic shelters is wholly reimbursed by the Exchequer, and that other expenditure ranks for grant at the appropriate rate.

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman, through his Regional inspectors, see that this work is expeditiously carried out?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Close attention is being given to the matter.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the need for more air-raid shelters for evacuated children in rural Essex, not only near their schools but also near or at the billets; and whether he will take action to assist the Essex County Council and rural authorities to meet this need?

Sir J. Anderson: The provision of air-raid shelters for children while at school is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. So far as concerns shelter near billets in unspecified areas, the Essex County Council have informed district councils, in accordance with a circular recently issued by my Department, that they will be ready to give immediate approval to

plans for providing shelter in places where there are aggregations of population or in the vicinity of points specially liable to attack. I ought, however, to make it clear that it is unlikely that the labour and materials available will permit the provision of shelter in all areas to which children may have been evacuated.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not only this question but that there is financial limitation which in some measure restricts the supply of air-raid precautions? Could he not consider that?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not believe that financial difficulties are restricting the provision of shelters.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are two other Questions down with regard to the provision of shelters for school children, and that I could mention four or five areas? So far we have had stereotyped replies from the three Departments. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is some unity of action between them to provide shelters? The German bomber does not distinguish between evacuation and reception areas. Could the right hon. Gentleman give some decision?

Sir J. Anderson: There is complete co-ordination between the Departments concerned if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Board of Education, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Home Security.

Mr. de Rothschild: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a supply of cement is given to these areas to build shelters? At present they are given none at all.

Sir J. Anderson: That is another matter, and that is one of the difficulties to which the Department is addressing itself.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make the necessary arrangements with the local authorities whereby seating and lighting will be incorporated in the street air-raid shelters that are now being erected?

Sir J. Anderson: My Department has in preparation an instruction to local authorities dealing with these questions.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the area of vulnerability has been greatly ex-


tended since the occupation of the French coast by the enemy, steps are being taken to supply Anderson shelters to the new vulnerable districts?

Sir J. Anderson: I greatly regret that, in view of the demands for steel for more urgent war purposes, it is impracticable to resume manufacture of the standard steel shelter so as to enable supplies to be issued to areas which have not already received them. General instructions have, however, been issued to all local authorities regarding the various means of providing alternative forms of shelter at or near the homes of the people.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that many local authorities sent back as many as 3,000 of these shelters, that they would not accept them at the time when they were available, and that they are now crying out for them?

Sir J. Anderson: It is true that some were sent back, but it was a very small proportion of the whole. In all 2,300,000 shelters were issued.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the Minister aware that a great deal of feeling is being caused in various parts of the country when people hear of the efficacy of shelters while they themselves have no shelters and are subject to air raids?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that is another matter.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he will instruct local authorities that the locking of air-raid shelters during the hours of daylight should be discontinued?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 27th June to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower).

Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only a few days ago members of the public who went to take shelter during an air raid found that the shelter had been locked?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to give me particulars, and I will look into them.

ENEMY LANDINGS (OBSTACLES).

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make it compulsory for all owners of large fields

or open spaces to construct obstacles which would prevent landings by enemy aircraft?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be making later this afternoon in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the Isle of Fly (Mr. de Rothschild).

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Prime Minister who is responsible for carrying out measures to render agricultural land proof against landing by enemy aircraft; whether it is the War Office, the Air Ministry, the rural district council, the parish council, or whether it is left to members of the Home Guard; and what steps are being taken by whichever authority is responsible to consult with the Ministry of Agriculture on this matter, in order to ensure that measures are taken which are not likely to impair the productivity of the land, as in many districts agricultural land has already had its food-producing potentialities seriously reduced as a result of the ill-advised methods of protection which have been adopted?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The position has been reviewed, and for the future the ultimate responsibility for the obstruction of possible enemy landing grounds will be divided between the Army and the Royal Air Force. Each of these authorities has its sphere of action clearly defined. The work will, so far as possible, be carried out by the Army and the Royal Air Force authorities themselves, or by contractors working under their direction. Should they require any addition to their labour force, it would be supplied either by voluntary labour or by paid labour, both of which would be under the auspices of the local authority; but the planning of the work would be under the general direction of the Service authorities. I wish to make it clear that civilian authorities will not undertake any works of obstruction which are not covered by the particular or general instructions of the Service authorities. A strict instruction to consult with the County War Agricultural Executive Committees has been issued, and it has been impressed upon those responsible that, subject to overriding military necessity, fullest consideration must be given for the preservation of our agriculture.

Mr. Granville: Will the individual farmers have an opportunity of giving their advice as to where obstacles should be put in their fields, particularly during the harvest season?

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all over the country farmers have almost entirely ignored the instructions—

Mrs. Tate: That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. Bevan: —and that it is only necessary to go on a short car journey, or to look out of any railway compartment window, to see fields in which there are no obstructions?

Mr. de Rothschild: Will the Lord Privy Seal institute an arrangement whereby the Ministry of Agriculture will be represented by a person who will go round the fields and see that agriculture is respected, and that the productivity of the land is not in any way reduced; and is he aware that the agricultural committees as at present constituted are composed of farmers who have no authority in relation to the military and air authorities; and is it not essential that a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture should be consulted?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that point to the Service Ministries concerned. The arrangement at present is that the orders of the military authorities must be paramount in matters of defence, but they are instructed to consult with the local agricultural committees. I cannot think that it would be possible to have a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture dealing with individual cases all over the country.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of farmers have been visited by inspectors and forced by them to take their men from the work of cultivation to erect the obstacles, and to whom are they to apply for compensation?

Mr. Attlee: I would ask the hon. Member to put that Question on the Order Paper.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (FACTORY WORKERS).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Home Secretary whether he will permit workers in factories to help with ordinary air-raid precautions, especially in the Black

Country, where little other help is available, always having in mind the fact that the workers may be expected to return to their tasks more cheerfully if they have first-hand news from their mates as to how their families have fared in an air raid?

Sir J. Anderson: I appreciate the value from all points of view of active co-operation between the trained A.R.P. personnel of factories and those of local authorities. In recent months regional commissioners have given their close attention to arrangements for ensuring such co-operation, particularly where especially heavy air raids occur in densely populated localities.

STIRRUP PUMPS.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Home Secretary whether adequate supplies of stirrup pumps are now being produced; and whether he is satisfied that a sufficient consignment has been sent to the Bournemouth area?

Sir J. Anderson: The output of stirrup pumps is being increased to meet a rising demand. Under the supplementary fire party scheme supplies have been allocated to Bournemouth on the basis of population, and delivery will soon be completed.

INTERNEES.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to publish the categories of enemy aliens eligible for exemption, and the procedure to be followed for making applications for exemption?

Sir J. Anderson: A White Paper containing this information was presented to the House yesterday.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister consider asking the Advisory Committee to look into the question of aliens who may not be covered by the 18 categories contained in the White Paper? Many of these aliens are strongly anti-Nazi and friendly to us, and will he consider releasing them?

Sir J. Anderson: The Advisory Committee is now engaged on that task.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is the Minister aware that the White Paper meets with almost universal reprobation? May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will give us an opportunity of debating it on a Motion or a Vote of Censure?

Sir Joseph Lamb: Can the Home Secretary give equal consideration to those evacuees, Britishers, who have gone from coastal areas into Midland areas?

Mr. Silverman: Can the Minister say whether internees who make application in accordance with the procedure adopted will have the right to be personally heard?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot say that at the moment. The first task is to review the categories of exemption and see whether further categories can be framed, under which action could be taken forthwith. The examination of individual cases is constantly proceeding, but I cannot at the moment say what opportunities it will be possible to give to individual aliens to represent their cases in person.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that considerable delay still occurs in communication between internees and their relatives and friends; that correspondence sent by Members of this House to internees in the Isle of Man has received no reply for the last three weeks; what further steps he will take to secure reasonable speed of communication between internees who may now be in the Dominions and their relatives and friends in Great Britain; and how information may be secured as to whether internees are in this country or have been sent overseas and the addresses to which correspondence for them may be sent?

Sir J. Anderson: I much regret the delays which have been occurring in regard to communications to and from internees, but the various difficulties which have caused these delays are being surmounted. An Inquiry Bureau where information can be obtained as to the whereabouts of internees will, I hope, be opened next week. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the addresses to which correspondence for internees sent to the Dominions may be sent.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that this extraordinary delay in correspondence has caused untold distress? Is he also aware that some of those sent overseas have not been allowed to communicate with friends or relatives here and that the latter know nothing of the internees' whereabouts? Could the Minister arrange for Members of Parliament to have special facilities in order to communicate with internees?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think special facilities are necessary for any particular class. I am doing my best to overcome the difficulties to which reference has been made.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: In order to avoid delay, could the Minister supply a printed postcard to every internee so that they could inform their relatives at once of their whereabouts?

Sir J. Anderson: That matter is the subject of Question 31.

Following are the addresses:

In the case of Canada:

c/o Operations Base.

Army Post Office.

Canada.

In the case of Australia:

c/o Prisoners of War Information Bureau,

Melbourne,

Australia.

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Home Secretary whether he will exempt from internment enemy aliens in respect of whom it can be shown by reference to their positive acts in the past that they are opposed to the Nazi régime?

Sir J. Anderson: This is one of the questions which I have referred to the Advisory Committee for consideration.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is the Home Secretary aware that under the list published Professor Einstein, Toscanini and Thomas Mann would still be in internment camps?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that is questionable, but the list published was a statement of the conditions of exemption that were laid down in connection with the policy of general internment.

Sir R. Acland: Can we have an early decision on this matter? Many people feel that it is the most important matter to be settled at this moment.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Home Secretary whether he has withdrawn the Regulation which prevents enemy alien internees from writing letters until the tenth day of their internment; and whether he has made newspapers available to the internees?

Sir J. Anderson: The responsibility for the management of internment camps for


male enemy aliens is to be transferred to my Department on 5th August. I understand that the existing Regulations allow two field-service postcards to be sent on arrival at the internment camp and two letters a week thereafter. I also understand that the ban on newspapers has been removed. I am considering the question of revising the Regulations on this and other matters.

Sir R. Acland: Would the Home Secretary find out who was responsible for the appalling mental agony of these people who were not even allowed to have an ordinary newspaper posted up in the camp so that they could know what was happening in the world week after week? Who was responsible?

Sir J. Anderson: So far as I am concerned, I can most profitably direct the efforts of my Department towards getting things right for the future.

Sir R. Acland: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a great many people want to know who has been to blame for the terrible things that have happened? They want to know who is behind it.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this very simple arrangement: Will he publish information as to where relatives can consult a list of internees? Does he know that in many cases their whereabouts cannot be traced?

Sir J. Anderson: That difficulty will be removed in the course of the next few days.

Sir Percy Harris: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will have some inquiry made to find out who is responsible?

Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Baronet will put down a Question to me, I will answer it.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether Hans Alec Rosenfelder, whose wife is a British subject, last heard of in the Isle of Man, has been deported; whether, in view of the fact that he is prepared to serve in the British Army, he comes under any of the categories of those to be released; and, if in Canada, can his British wife and child get an exit permit to join him?

Sir J. Anderson: This man is in the Isle of Man. If he applies for enlistment and is accepted, he will be released.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I received a letter from him this morning, dated 3rd July, which has been held up by the censor, and that he has now been emigrated to Australia?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware of that. The information that I have just given is the information supplied to me. Of course, I will look into the matter. There is always a possibility of confusion.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether any of the present or prospective categories cover the release from internment of Otto Schafer, in view of the fact that he was an officer in the Austrian air force in the last war and desires to serve the cause of freedom in the air?

Sir J. Anderson: I have received an application for this man's release on grounds of ill-health, and inquiries are being made.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary how many of the anti-Nazi so-called enemy aliens recently interned have been released up to date; and how many he expects to set free before the end of August?

Sir J. Anderson: Up to last Saturday I had authorised the release of 192 Germans and Austrians who had been interned in pursuance of general directions. I regret that I am unable to prophesy as to the future.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect the delay to be between the actual authorisation and the release of these men?

Sir J. Anderson: It should not be more than two days.

Major Milner: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a fortnight ago releases were authorised and that these people have not been released yet?

Sir J. Anderson: That is perfectly true. It is due to a certain confusion in the records, which was the result of the haste with which certain measures were taken.

Major Milner: asked the Home Secretary what number of aliens, and in what categories, are now confined in the


ordinary prisons of the country, instead of in properly constituted camps; in what respects does the treatment of such aliens differ from that of ordinary prisoners convicted of criminal offences; and whether he regards the position in these respects as satisfactory?

Sir J. Anderson: 117 German or Austrian women interned under the Prerogative are at present in prison pending transfer to the Isle of Man when accommodation becomes available. 355 non-enemy aliens against whom deportation orders have been made are detained in prison under Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order, 1920, as amended. There is also a certain number of aliens who, having been refused leave to land, are temporarily detained in prisons while further inquiries about them are being made. All these persons are treated in the same manner as unconvicted persons on remand or awaiting trial.

Major Milner: Have any of these categories any opportunity of appeal to a committee or other person, and is it not a fact that the prisons in which they are confined are very much overcrowded and under-staffed, that these people are short of exercise, have no newspapers and can write only once a week, and that the conditions are very unsatisfactory?

Sir J. Anderson: Perfectly true. Recent happenings have imposed a very heavy strain on the prison organisation. I am doing everything I can to improve the position.

Mr. J. P. Morris: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Horst Giesener, 16 years of age, son of a domestic servant, Kate Giesener, a German refugee residing at 70, Cavendish Road, Kersal, Salford, was interned on 16th May; that the Home Office in a communication, dated 17th July, stated that if the boy's employers notified their willingness to employ him he would be released; that the employers did signify such intention but the boy has not yet been released; that letters and parcels sent to him at Huyton camp have been returned; that prepaid telegrams sent to the camp have not had a reply; that a telephone message to the camp elicited the reply that his name was not on the list of internees, and that he probably had been sent overseas; and will he, in order

to ease the sorrow of the boy's mother, have inquiries made to ascertain the whereabouts of her son?

Sir J. Anderson: I am now informed that this boy volunteered to go to Australia, and embarked on 10th July. I am making further inquiries into the circumstances of the case and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is similar to dozens of other cases, and will he look into the statement that the person volunteered to go to Australia?

Sir J. Anderson: I have said that I am making further inquiries into this matter.

Mr. Martin: asked the Home Secretary whether, in the case of women detained under the Defence Regulations and accompanied by unweaned babies, he will give instructions that they shall not be separated from such babies in prison, or place of detention, at least until their case has been before the Advisory Committee?

Sir J. Anderson: I am informed that this is already the practice.

Mr. Martin: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into a case which I will send him at an early date?

Sir J. Anderson: I shall be very glad to do so.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what are the precise functions carried out by the committee, presided over by the Lord President of the Council, in connection with the internment of refugees and other persons?

Mr. Attlee: There has been no special committee on this subject, though this matter has, amongst others, been considered by a Committee of the War Cabinet presided over by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Mander: Did not the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department say in the Debate the other day that these matters were decided by a Committee presided over by the Lord President of the Council, and will the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more information about that?

Mr. Attlee: I have given the hon. Member the information. There is no special committee.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Angelo de Michiel, late of 26, Aberdeen Road, London, N.5, is an interned active Fascist in receipt of workmen's compensation pay, in regard to whom the Public Trustee has refused to allow payment to be made by the insurance company as contra against the cost of the man's keep by the State; that, under the new Bill, the claimant will receive 46s. a week against the present 30s. a week; and will he make arrangements for these payments to defray the cost of the man's keep forthwith?

Sir J. Anderson: Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, weekly compensation is not capable of being assigned, charged or attached nor can any claim be set off against it.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that he has solved more difficult problems than this one, and does he intend that this deplorable state of affairs should continue?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot recognise that there is here any deplorable state of affairs. The provisions to which I have referred are statutory provisions, and my powers are limited to making changes in the law which are necessary for purposes of defence. I have no power at all in this matter.

Mr. Higgs: Cannot the Minister take powers?

Mr. C. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether the nearest relatives of the Germans and Italians who went down on the "Arandora Star" have been informed?

Sir J. Anderson: Steps have been taken to notify the names of the missing to the Swiss and Brazilian Legations and to the refugee organisations, with a view to the next-of-kin being informed. I will consider what further steps are necessary and practicable.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that wives and mothers of many of those who went down on the "Arandora Star" do not know to this day?

Sir J. Anderson: If any practical suggestion is made to me for improving the arrangements to which I have referred, I shall certainly be prepared to consider it.

Mr. Strauss: Should not relatives be written to direct by some Government Department?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, if there is a record of their identity in the possession of the Department, and that is part of the difficulty.

Major Milner: Is there not a complete record?

AIR-RAID CASUALTIES.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to give further details of casualties in air raids; and, if so, will he say how the last figures published were divided, as between the Armed Forces, and civilian men, women and children?

Sir J. Anderson: The figures of air-raid casualties published by my Department relate to civilian casualties and do not include any casualties among members of the Armed Forces. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing how the civilian casualties during the month beginning 18th June were divided between men, women and children; and I have arranged that this classification shall be adopted, so far as practicable, in future monthly statements of civilian casualties.

Following are the figures:


Civilians killed and seriously injured in air raids on the United Kingdom during the month beginning 18th June 1940.


—
Men.
Women.
Children (under 16 years of age).
Total.


Killed
287
42
7
336


Injured
369
91
16
476

AIR-RAID DETAILS (PUBLICATION).

Sir H. O'Neill: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider publishing further details about air raids on this country in such a way as, while not giving information to the enemy, will enable the public both here and abroad to realise the extent of this form of warfare against Britain, to appreciate the conduct of the air-raid precautions organisation and the civilian population, and to learn about any outstanding examples of heroism or devotion to duty?

Sir J. Anderson: I am considering these questions, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air. But I can say at once that I will certainly arrange for the publication of particulars of outstanding examples of heroism or devotion to duty, and I would draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the announcement which appeared in the "London Gazette" on 30th July of the award of the Medal of the Order of the British Empire for meritorious service to Warden Donald Louis Jones of the Air-Raid Precautions Service, Kent.

Sir H. O'Neill: I take it that it will be possible to circulate some kind of details which will give an idea of how the civilian population are meeting these very trying conditions?

Sir J. Anderson: I hope to be able to do that.

"DAILY WORKER" (ARTICLE).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the leading article in the "Daily Worker of 25th July; and whether, in view of its misrepresentation of fact and its incitement to class war at a time when united effort is necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, he proposes to take any steps to stop the circulation of this paper?

Sir J. Anderson: I have taken note of the article to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but, as he knows, any action taken under the Defence Regulations would have to be based on grounds different from those indicated in his Question.

Sir A. Knox: Has the Minister read this article, and does not he agree that every word is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts with a view to inciting disaffection?

Sir J. Anderson: I have read the article, but in my opinion the workers of this country are too sensible to be misled by crude misrepresentations of this kind.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is trying to incite them to evil and dangerous practices is notorious for his pro-Fascist sympathies?

INSURANCE POLICIES (WAR RISKS).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that uncertainty exists in the minds of workers who continue work during air raids lest personal assurance policies may be thereby invalidated; and whether he will make a statement to the effect that the Government will protect policy-holders if such contingency should arise?

Sir J. Anderson: I know of no form of policy under which claims which would otherwise be admissible could be ruled out on the grounds indicated in the Question.

Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a problem which is arising in industry? What the workers want is some definite declaration by my right hon. Friend.

Sir J. Anderson: I do not see how any declaration by me would help. I have made inquiries, and, according to my information, insurance policies which were issued prior to the outbreak of the war did not contain any war-risk clause. The policies issued since September last contain a war-risk clause, and an insurer knows that in the event of death by enemy action the policy does not apply. The question, therefore, whether a person insured has gone in an air-raid shelter during an air raid, does not seem to be material.

GLASS PROTECTION, AIR RAIDS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary which method of glass protection in air raids has been found in the course of recent hostilities to be the most efficacious?

Sir J. Anderson: Recent experience confirms the view of my technical advisers that textile netting, transparent film affixed to the whole surface, and strips of adhesive tape or other strong material give the best protection.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Does that mean a combination of these methods?

Sir William Davison: How thickly should the adhesive tape be applied?

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements


have been made for the continuance of the work of the International Labour Office; whether the temporary transfer of the bureau from Geneva has been agreed to; and to what place it is to be removed?

Mr. Bevin: This matter is, I understand, at present under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject.

ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has arrived at any decision in relation to the question of house purchase by members of the Armed Forces who made application under M.S A.C., Form 21; and, if so, what is the decision arrived at and has he conveyed such decision to the Advisory Committee?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a resolution recently passed by the War Service Grants Advisory Committee in regard to house purchase through building societies. I regret that I found myself unable to accept the committee's recommendation. My decision was conveyed to the chairman of the committee on 25th July, and I understand that the hon. Member, in common with other members of the committee, has now received a copy.

Mr. Dobbie: Are we to understand that this decision of the Minister countermands the promise made by the Secretary of State for War in reply to a similar Question addressed to him some months ago, in regard to which Service men, their wives and families were firmly dependent upon the word of the Government?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir, I do not agree that it is countermanding any promise that was made. I met representatives of the building societies, and they were quite prepared to accept interest and leave in abeyance the question of repayment of capital. The committee were empowered to provide for interest in the cases with which they dealt.

Mr. Dobbie: Inasmuch as this answer is, in my opinion, a direct contravention of the promise made to the men in the service of the country, I shall take advantage of the first opportunity to raise this question on the Adjournment.

Mr. Debbie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the great amount of disappointment amongst the dependants of the Armed Forces who make application for assistance to the M.S.A.C. under Form 21 at the long delay in getting answers to such applications; and will he take the needful steps to speed up the machinery dealing with such applications, so that quicker and better results may be obtained?

Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid I cannot usefully add to the very full statement which my hon. Friend made on this matter in the course of the Debate on 25th June.

Mr. Dobbie: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry takes a long time to give decisions, even a longer time sometimes than it takes to give effect to decisions in this House; and is he also aware that landlords do not delay, and that they are evicting soldiers' wives who are unable to meet their responsibilities?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not aware of those circumstances.

Mr. Gallacher: It is time you were.

Mr. Dobbie: Inasmuch as I am aware—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Dobbie: These things are desperate to the people who are evicted.

Mr. Debbie: asked the Minister of Pensions what procedure is adopted by the committee dealing with applications for assistance by dependants of the Armed Forces under M.S.A.C. Form 21, when such applications are acceded to, to ensure that such grants do not automatically cease; and will he issue such instructions as to ensure that no payments will be discontinued until the committee have discussed the case and arrived at a decision on the same?

Sir W. Womersley: A war service grant does not cease automatically unless it is expressly made for a specific period or there is a material change in the recipient's circumstances such as to justify termination of the grant. When any other case is reviewed payment does not cease until a fresh decision is given.

Mr. Dobbie: Does that mean that, in the event of the Committee making a


decision which terminates on a certain date, the particular case will be reviewed before the termination, or that there can either be a continuity of payment or an intimation given to the individual that no further payment can be made, because considerable hardship, inconvenience and disappointment are being experienced by the dependants of the soldiers?

Sir W. Womersley: In every case where an adjustment is made with regard to grants, the adjusted grant is made payable in the week following the last payment on the old grant. The question as to whether a notification is made by the Committee to the person concerned is one into which I shall have to inquire.

Mr. Dobbie: Would the Minister like to look at an eviction order, and also at letters which are not in line with the answer that the Minister has given to the Question?

Sir W. Womersley: I am always prepared to consider any cases that the hon. Member brings to my notice, and I shall be very glad if hon. Members will avail themselves of that privilege. It might save a good deal of trouble to the Member, and it certainly would be helpful to me.

Mr. Dobbie: And to the people concerned, I hope.

Mr. Dunn: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) what steps a soldier, sailor or airman should take in order to claim consideration by the War Service Grants Advisory Committee, whilst in any branch of the Services, who did not make a claim at the time of enlistment, and cannot secure the necessary forms;
(2) whether, in view of the uncertainty among new recruits to His Majesty's Forces as to the way in which they can claim special war service grants, he will make a statement as to what is the present procedure to be followed by the soldier; and whether any help is given him in making his claim?

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the difficulty in securing M.S.A.C. Form 21 by men at their medical examination, on enlistment and after commencement in the Services; and what steps he will take to remedy this position?

Sir W. Womersley: It has been the practice for some time to send to every man called for medical examination a leaflet on the subject of allowances, which includes a special reference to the grants made on the recommendation of the War Service Grants Advisory Committee. On attending for examination the man is definitely asked whether he wishes to apply for a grant, and, if he does, he is provided on the spot with an application form: he is advised to fill in the form there and then, and is offered help in completing it by an official who is well qualified to assist. If he does not wish, or is not able, to complete the form without taking it away he is advised to return it within two days, so that the necessary inquiries may be put in hand without delay. Men already serving can obtain application forms through their commanding officers, and welfare officers are ready to give advice and assistance in completing them. The arrangements for the supply of these forms have been so widely and repeatedly circulated in the Forces that I cannot accept as well founded, generalisations as to difficulties now experienced by men who apply for them. If my hon. Friends can quote actual cases of the kind, I am sure that the Service Departments, as in the past, will take steps to remove the difficulties where they are shown to occur. Finally, the wife or dependant of a man serving outside this country can personally apply on a form obtainable at the local office of the Assistance Board and notices to this effect are in all post offices.

Mrs. Adamson: Is the Minister aware that in the borough of Bexley the post offices knew nothing at all about this form or where it could be obtained; that the people in that large borough have to pay 4.d., 6d. or 8d. in fares to go to Eltham in order to secure the form; and further, while I admit that the men are being catered for on enlistment, is it not the fact that complaints have been made to his Department that after the men are in the Services the commanding officers have difficulty in providing these forms?

Sir W. Womersley: In the case of those who live some distance away from the Assistance Board offices, a postcard sent to those offices will result in a form being sent at once and will save the trouble of making the journey. As to the question of post offices not knowing anything


about it, we have circulated the instruction among the whole of the postal service. It may be that one or two of the small offices have forgotten about the instruction, but I will make inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. As regards dealing with the question generally, I am endeavouring to obtain permission to make a broadcast on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Sir Frank Sanderson: Am I not in order in putting a Supplementary Question?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member realises that there are 119 Questions on the Paper.

Sir F. Sanderson: I rarely intervene, and I would like to ask a question.

CHANNEL ISLANDS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether contact has been established through the medium of the Red Cross with the Channel Islands; whether he will consider alternatively the advisability of asking a representative of a neutral State to visit the Islands from France; and whether he has received any report or representations from Lord Justice du Parcq's Committee?

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Home Secretary whether any arrangements have yet been made through the International Red Cross, or otherwise, by which refugees from the Channel Islands can communicate with any relatives they may have left behind?

Sir J. Anderson: It is not yet known whether the International Red Cross Committee will be able to establish communication with the Channel Islands. As soon as I have any information on this point, I will let my hon. Friends know. The committee of which Lord Justice du Parcq is chairman is in constant touch with the Home Office and other Government Departments, but it is as yet too early for them to make a formal report on their work.

Mr. Mander: Can the Home Secretary say what practical difficulty there is in

asking whatever State looks after British interests in Germany to send a representative by boat from St. Malo to the Channel Islands to find out what is happening and report to us?

Sir J. Anderson: I have explained that I consider that the most appropriate and promising method of establishing and maintaining communication with the Channel Islands would be through the International Red Cross Committee. My Department is in touch with the committee, and I am hopeful that something can be arranged.

Mr. Mander: But does that not seem unpromising, in view of the fact that some weeks have gone by and nothing has happened?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a matter of opinion.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF).

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will take steps to remedy the fact that his Department is overstaffed, seeing that the staff admit they have not enough to do, and notwithstanding this they have to stay overtime and receive overtime pay?

Sir W. Womersley: I fear my hon. Friend is misinformed, and I should be glad if he would let me know the grounds on which he bases his statement. I am satisfied that my Department is not overstaffed for the new and very varied work which it is doing and, still more, has to be prepared to do. Happily, the war has not so far resulted in the heavy casualties that might have been expected, but to cope with the new work additional staff has obviously been necessary. Rather than rely on a hastily improvised organisation, I have decided that the work of the Ministry is of sufficient importance to require a trained staff. The majority of the staff are new, and as the work steadily increases in volume I have had to work with a margin of staff, a small portion of which at any time is in training. Only by this means can I achieve the primary object which I have set before myself, that of avoiding delay and of securing the utmost promptitude possible in the settlement of cases.

CHILDREN'S OVERSEAS EVACUA- TION SCHEME.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of refusing further exit permits for children from this country to the Dominions and the United States of America until arrangements have been made for equal facilities for all classes, regardless of wealth, to participate therein?

Sir J. Anderson: Exit permits are not required by persons under 16 years of age; but it is proposed, in pursuance of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement on 18th July, to make other arrangements to ensure that in any further emigration of children overseas the balance between classes shall be restored.

Mr. Mander: Does that mean that persons who have money and are using it to send children abroad, whereas the poor cannot do so, will in future have no advantage over the poor?

Sir J. Anderson: It means, as my right hon. Friend said, that a true balance will be established between the children of the well-to-do who pay for their passage and children emigrated under the Government scheme.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the Government never had any class bias in their scheme and that many working people would have sent their children if they had been in a position to do so?

WASTE RECLAIMING COY, BARKING.

Mr. Parker: asked the Home Secretary whether Mr. J. Lawford, of the Universal Waste Reclaiming Company, Limited, River Works, River Road, Barking, is permitted to continue business; and, if so, whether he will order the police persecution of this man to cease forthwith?

Sir J. Anderson: This company has on its premises waste material constituting a serious fire risk to surrounding property and to an electric transmission line. The police have had occasion to visit Mr. Laufer in connection with efforts which have been made to dispose of this waste material. It is very desirable that the

material should be removed, and I cannot regard the action which the police have taken at the request of the responsible Departments as unnecessary or unjustified.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. Levy: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to create a Ministry of Building or whether the idea is to incorporate some organisation of this nature in a general Ministry of Reconstruction after victory has been won?

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister whether, in planning a Ministry of Building, full use will be made of architects, so as to ensue good design and economical lay-out in all future construction?

Mr. Attlee: The question whether any changes are desirable during the war in the present distribution of responsibility for Government building work is being considered. In this connection the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) will be borne in mind. I cannot say now what arrangement may be necessary after the war.

ECONOMIC ORGANISATION.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Prime Minister the number and description of committees who are advising various Ministers on measures involving interference with the liberty of the subject, and/or the rights of property; and whether he will circulate a list of the members of such committees?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. I am not prepared to circulate a list on the lines proposed. As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 4th June, the Home Policy Committee, of which I am Chairman, is responsible for the framing of draft legislation and of Regulations and Orders concerned with matters which in normal times would be dealt with by Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: Would it not be better to circulate the names of those committees and the people who are on them, in order to disabuse the minds of people in


this country against the idea that private property is getting special consideration against the interests of the workers?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member has repeated his Question; my answer still is that it would not be desirable to circulate such a list.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that there is very strong feeling about this?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WOMEN WORKERS.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that there is no national minimum wage for permanent women workers in the agricultural industry, he will give an assurance that such workers will not be debarred from transferring to other occupations of national importance providing a better return for the work done?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): There is no regulation to prevent women workers in agriculture from changing their occupation. If it should prove necessary at any time to reconsider that position, all the relevant factors will be taken into account.

PLUMS AND POTATOES (PRICES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Food with a view to securing for the plum growers, 1d. per pound, £9 6s. 8d. per ton, for all plums throughout the country; and also, regarding the prices fixed for farm potatoes for August and September, having due regard to the increased cost of production and the fact that the yield of early potatoes is below normal?

Mr. Hudson: As to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) on 18th July. I am conferring with my right hon. Friend regarding certain representations which have been made since the potato prices were announced.

ALLOTMENTS.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give local

authorities the power to requisition gardens in vacated houses for the purpose of providing allotments?

Mr. Hudson: I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the reply given on 30th July to a similar Question put to me by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker).

PIG FEEDING (KITCHEN REFUSE).

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now give the names of the localities in which he has planned to increase the war supply of pigs by using the Tottenham kitchen-refuse system, or has he consulted the Ministry of Food with a view to that Ministry taking the initiative; and will he issue a White Paper explaining what action is being taken?

Mr. Hudson: I am not at present able to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 25th July.

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a number of arable farmers without sufficient capital try to farm on very cheap borrowed money, and that often the results are unsatisfactory; and will he, to ensure that food production shall not be hindered by an unhealthy farming economy based upon debt, ask agricultural committees to discountenance farming by those already embarrassed by debt and to discourage loans to uncreditworthy persons for stocking and running farms without that ratio of their own capital indispensable in business?

Mr. Hudson: I know that many farmers borrow money to finance their business enterprises, but I have no evidence to suggest that the results are any less satisfactory in agriculture than in other industries, nor do I regard the borrowing of capital as a symptom of an unhealthy economy. I could certainly not support any proposal, such as that suggested by my hon. Friend, which would discourage the lending of money to farmers by those who are willing to do so.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not this the all-important point, that we want every bushel of grain and every ounce of food we can get?

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will examine and report on the complaint that creditworthy farmers, without adequate capital, cannot borrow to farm owing to denial of loans, or to loans at rates justified only by the risks to lenders; and, if the validity of the complaint be proved, whether he will organise and finance creditworthy farmers on land available so that food production may not be hindered by inability to borrow, or to borrow at justifiably low rates?

Mr. Hudson: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with the particulars of any cases in which creditworthy farmers have been refused loans, I shall be happy to make inquiries.

HOME-GROWN SUGAR-BEET.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has planned, in advance, for a large increase in homegrown sugar-beet production; and whether he has devised any schemes for developing unsuitable rural into suitable areas by clearing, by cultivation and by fertilisation for sugar-beet and, at the same time, using some of such areas and idle grass and residential lands in the southern counties for large-scale poultry rearing under the supervision of agricultural war committees?

Mr. Hudson: I do not think that any difficulty is likely to arise in securing the acreage required for next year's programme. The suggestion in the last part of the Question is not practicable having regard to the feeding-stuffs position.

PLUM CROP.

Mr. De la Bère: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now give an estimate of the probable yield of this season's plum crop, and of what the surplus is likely to be; and what steps are proposed to be taken by the Minister of Food to ensure that no part of the crop is wasted?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that the total yield of the plum crop, which a few weeks ago was estimated at 100,000 tons, is now not expected to exceed 90,000. The reduced

estimate is due to the effects upon the crop of the prolonged period of almost unbroken dry weather in the late spring and early summer. A crop of this size, under normal peace-time conditions, would probably result in a surplus of from 20,000 to 30,000 tons, but with a greatly increased demand on the part of the jam and canning industries, due to the partial failure of the soft fruit crops, it is estimated that the actual surplus over total domestic and commercial requirements will not exceed 10,000 tons. Arrangements are being made with the jam manufacturers for this amount of plum pulp to be laid down by them in excess of their own requirements for the coming season, and to be held for later use either for jam making or for other forms of industrial consumption.
My hon. Friend will understand that the estimate of the total crop, upon which the estimate of the surplus depends, is largely conjectural. There are no reliable statistical data available on which to base a firm estimate. There appears to be no doubt, however, that there will be an abundant supply of plums to meet all demands, both domestic and industrial, and that there will be no justification for high prices. My Noble Friend hopes that in these circumstances it will not be necessary to impose a price control, but it is his intention to make a Maximum Prices Order if prices tend to rise above a reasonable level.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the Minister of Food will consider making a fixed price instead of a maximum price, because it is sometimes impossible to get a maximum price? Is he further aware that this is a very important matter to Evesham and Pershore?

Mr. Boothby: I am aware that it is a very important matter to Evesham and Pershore.

Mr. Shinwell: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the putting down of a Private Notice Question on such a nature is not an abuse of Private Notice Questions? May I further ask whether this Question was inspired by the Department?

Mr. Speaker: It is for me to decide on the importance of a Private Notice Question. I thought the plum crop was coming on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

Mr. Attlee: The business will be as follows:
Tuesday: Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday: Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. A Debate will take place on Economic Policy.
Thursday: We shall begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
During the week it is hoped to make further progress with the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Cocks: Following last Tuesday's Debate, is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is a general desire that we should have a public Debate on foreign policy so that we can speak to the world instead of talking among ourselves?

Mr. Granville: Is it the intention of the Government to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Ministry of Information before the House gets up for the Recess?

Earl Winterton: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give consideration to the point I put last week on behalf of several hon. Friends, namely, that we should have a statement which could be debated on the important connected questions of the contributions of India and the Colonial Empire to defence, in view of the fact that no information has been given to the House, but a great deal to the Press, and that we are constitutionally responsible for that matter in the House?

Mr. Attlee: The Government are always desirous of giving the House an opportunity of discussing subjects which are desired by a number of Members. It is clear that we have now three suggestions, and there is another one which is being suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). The Government will consider this request and endeavour to find out what is the desire of the House and what is the order of priority for these questions, in order that an opportunity

may be given for debate. Obviously, these matters must be weighed one against the other, and it is not always easy to find out what the House does want.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the Minister without Portfolio initiate the Debate on Wednesday?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir; a statement will be made by the Minister without Portfolio, who will open the Debate.

Mr. Lambert: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Session is likely to close, and whether the Government propose to take action having regard to the general election which ordinarily would be held in October?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid I cannot make any statement with regard to the sittings of the House, nor am I in a position to make any statement with regard to the Parliament Bill.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the Finance Bill be circulated, so that Members can have an opportunity of reading it before the Debate on Tuesday?

Mr. Attlee: It has already been circulated.

Sir H. Williams: It has not been circulated. It is usually sent out with the Parliamentary Papers. They will not be sent out until to-morrow morning, so that many Members who will have gone to their constituencies will not receive them.

Mr. Attlee: I understand that the Bill is in the Vote Office.

Earl Winterton: On the question of business, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend in considering whether a subject for which a Debate is asked is an important one, will also consider whether it has been discussed before? Will he take into consideration that the question of the defence contributions of India and the Colonies is important and that if only one Member asks for a discussion on it, we ought to have it?

Mr. Attlee: These considerations naturally will be borne in mind. Obviously, one has to consider what are the opportunities the Members have already had of debating a particular question and whether a subject has not been debated recently. One must take into account also the general desires of the House.
Where there is a subject in which only one Member is interested, he might very well be able to satisfy himself on the Adjournment.

Mr. Cocks: With regard to a Debate on foreign affairs, I hope the Lord Privy Seal will not be prejudiced by the fact that the last time foreign affairs were debated it led to a reconstruction of the Government.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[Mr. Attlee.]

OFFICIAL REPORT (INDEX).

Mr. Speaker: The House will remember that it was decided just over a month ago not to issue bound volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT in future except on payment. Arrangements have, however, now been made for the index to each volume to be issued separately, and Members will be able to order copies of each index in future from the Vote Office. The index for Volume 361 is already printed, and copies will be obtainable by any Member who asks for it at the Vote Office.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) (No. 2) BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendment read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considsidered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Power to provide for trial of offences by special courts in certain areas.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
so, however, that provision shall be made for such proceedings being reviewed by not less than three persons who hold or have held high judicial office, in all cases in which sentence of death is passed, and in such other circumstances as may be provided by the Regulations.

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that after some discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government agreed to accept an Amendment which stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) for the purpose of opening the way to the inclusion in the Bill of such a provision as we now have to consider. It was arranged on that occasion that consultation should take place between my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, myself, and Members in various quarters of the House who had expressed views about the provisions of the Bill before the Amendment to which I have referred was introduced. Those consultations took place, and I should like to express my appreciation of the helpful spirit in which those Members consulted with my right hon. and learned Friend and me and without exception addressed themselves to the task. In the result we were able to arrive at a form of words which was considered generally satis-

factory. That form has been adopted in another place and inserted in the Bill with only one change, to which I think no exception will be taken. It was proposed in the Amendment which had been discussed informally that the reviewing tribunal should consist of not less than two persons. In the form in which the Amendment is now on the Paper it is "not less than three persons." That change was made to deal with the contingency of a possible disagreement and to avoid what it was felt on further consideration would be an undesirable complication in the Regulations.
On the merits of the Amendment, I should like to point out that it would have been easy, in endeavouring to find safeguards against possible mistakes on the part of these war-zone tribunals, to come to a point of elaboration which would have so complicated the procedure of the judicial system to be set up under the Bill as to defeat the whole object of the Bill by throwing the authorities back, in the conditions of emergency which we have to contemplate, upon the drastic processes implicit in a state of martial law. That is what we were most anxious to avoid. I think we have succeeded in avoiding that difficulty by having recourse to a procedure which, though it is entirely novel in this country, appears likely to meet with general acceptance in the special circumstances of the case. Under the proposed Amendment all death sentences will be automatically referred to the reviewing tribunal. It is further provided that in such other cases as may be provided by the Regulations, the tribunal shall make reviews. I know that it is felt in certain quarters that there should be some assurance that in suitable cases, other than cases in which the death sentence has been imposed, there should be this review for which we are making provision. The intention of the Government is that that matter should be provided for by Regulation.
I want to say, definitely, to the House that in submitting, as we have undertaken to do, draft Regulations for informal discussion between representatives of the Government and certain hon. Members, we shall not put forward in this matter anything which represents a cut-and-dried proposal. I have an entirely open mind on the subject. I am clear that we ought to make provision for the review,


in suitable circumstances, of cases in which there are sentences less than the death sentence. It is a little difficult to determine the best test to apply or the best procedure. One suggestion which has been made is that it should be dependent on the length of the sentence. That has its attractions. On the other hand, I do not think that, in itself, it would be a highly satisfactory criterion. There may be cases in which the sentence is comparatively light, but in which, from the point of view of the convicted person, a review is a matter of great importance. I suggest, therefore, to my hon. Friends in all quarters of the House that the best course would be for us to get together to see how we can best achieve what, I think, we are all agreed upon as desirable.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I think we may, without reserve, extend our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the wisdom which he has displayed in formulating this Amendment. At the same time we may congratulate ourselves on our part in having brought about this desirable state of affairs. It is largely due to the activities of hon. Members that we have reached the favourable conclusion represented by this Amendment, and I am bound to say that, listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon, one hardly recognised him as the Minister who spoke in our discussion a few days ago. This afternoon he spoke with a breadth of vision and a humanity which were certainly foreign to his contributions to our previous Debate. However, it is not for us to complain and we would rather see the right hon. Gentleman in his present guise than in the robes which he wore when we were debating this matter last week.
I think this Amendment will meet the views expressed by hon. Members. It represents precisely what we asked for in the previous Debate, and I need not waste any words upon it. I should, however, like to point out that the smooth working of this Measure will depend very largely on the Regulations which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to formulate. He has made specific provision in the Amendment, as we note, for the review of death sentences. That review will be automatic. So far, so good. But in the

case of sentences to long terms of imprisonment, sentences maybe of 15 or 20 years penal servitude, it appears to me, and apparently it also appears to the right hon. Gentleman, that some review is required. While it may not be possible to provide in the Measure itself for such a review, we should be glad to avail of the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman is to afford us of discussing the matter with him, so that such a provision may be embodied in the Regulations. We are engaged on a great experiment. We have never had occasion to operate such a Measure in the past, and it may well be that there will be no need to operate it in the future—certainly we all hope that may be so. But, if we are called upon to experiment in this way, we must exercise the greatest caution. Mistakes may be made. In the very nature of the case that must be so. In a situation such as is envisaged by these proposals, there is bound to be confusion and in such circumstances one sees the possibility of blunders being made, even by those in authority. Therefore, in framing the Regulations, we must provide all possible safeguards. We must seek to prevent, as far as is practicable, the possibility of mistakes.
There is one other point to which I invite the attention of the House, and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman. That is concerning the civil courts themselves. It has been proposed that these courts should each consist of a person of judicial authority and knowledge sitting with two other persons, who may be described as assessors. The proposition which I put to the right hon. Gentleman—I ask for no answer now on the point—is that he should consider the appointment occasionally of a woman assessor, to deal with certain types of cases. Cases may arise from time to time in which women will be concerned and the desirability, in such cases, of a woman assessor is obvious, not necessarily to act in a judicial capacity, but to be there for the purpose of advising the presiding judge. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give that matter his consideration. Further comment on my part is unnecessary. We have secured from the right hon. Gentleman a response which, I think, meets the general view. It is a great pity that we should have wasted so many minutes—

Sir Percy Harris: Not wasted.

Major Milner: Better say "spent."

Mr. Shinwell: If hon. Members prefer that I should put it that way, I will do so. It is a great pity that we should have spent so many minutes, and indeed hours, on a protracted and often acrimonious discussion when a little less obduracy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman would have enabled us to achieve the object much more quickly. However, "all's well that ends well," and, in the circumstances, I am happy to support the right hon. Gentleman's Motion that the House should agree with this Amendment.

4.10 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: I wish to say a few sentences as one who took some interest in this Bill when it was passing through the Committee stage. I think the Amendment which has been made in another place and the undertaking which has been given so frankly and fully by the Home Secretary to the House this afternoon will meet the case, and in my opinion, for what it is worth, this Amendment should be accepted. I have only one regret, and that, I am sure, my right hon. Friend will understand. It is that much more of what is intended should not be put into the Measure itself and that so much should be left to the Regulations. I think that is a bad practice. It is much better, in the public interest, that, as far as possible, the details of the intentions of Parliament should be stated on the face of a Statute and that it should not be necessary for those who have to deal with Statutes to refer to Regulations which may, in some cases, be amended subsequently either by another Statute or by amending Regulations. In this case, however, the right hon. Gentleman has, undoubtedly, fully redeemed the pledge given by him to the House, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I join with those who have spoken in thanking the Home Secretary, both for the words of this Amendment, which cover the main portion of what we desired to see inserted in the Bill, and also for the spirit of the

speech in which he commended the Amendment to the House. We all appreciate the way in which he has met the views expressed by Members in all parts of the House. It shows that in these difficult times we have here a real working Parliamentary democracy, a Government working in harmony with Parliament and a Parliament making itself felt in the framing of legislation. We are grateful for the way in which the Home Secretary has guided us in this matter.
With regard to the Regulations, I share the view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) as to the desirability of dealing with these matters, as far as possible, in the wording of the Act of Parliament itself instead of leaving them to Regulations which have to be framed in a Ministerial office and come before Parliament for consideration only at rare intervals. Yet I think the pledge given, in this case, by the Minister, his statement that he has an open mind as to these details and will take into consideration the various suggestions made to him, will in substance meet the points which we have in mind. With regard to the question of reviewing the longer sentences, I hope it will be possible for the reviewing tribunal, at least to consider in all such cases whether or not there should be a review. They would thus be in a position something like that of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which considers whether or not, in a particular case, it should grant leave to appeal. It would be a simpler method than imposing a review automatically in all cases. It would give the appeal tribunal an opportunity to consider in every case of a long sentence, whether or not that sentence should be reviewed. There are other cases of shorter sentences, which on legal or other grounds may call for review and I have no doubt the Home Secretary will be able to provide for them in the Regulations.

4.13 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I do not think it would be fair to say that the time spent by the House on the discussion of this Measure or the time given to it by the Home Secretary has been wasted. I think the House exercised a very proper function, having regard to the nature and importance of the Measure, and I am sure that


my right hon. Friend would be the first to recognise the value of the advice and criticism which the House gave him, however forcefully they may have been put. I agree that the Amendment meets the wishes of those who are interested in the Bill, and as one who was privileged to meet the Home Secretary, in the discussions on this matter, I should like to say how much I appreciate his kindness and courtesy and the attention which he gave to what we had to say. As the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has pointed out, the question for consideration now is what will be in the Regulations. I feel sure that if the Home Secretary is as anxious to take the views of those who are interested, in the framing of the Regulations, as he has been in the framing of the Bill, very little time will be required to get those Regulations through the House.

4.15 p.m.

Major Milner: Before I add my congratulations to those which have been expressed to the Home Secretary, there are two suggestions which I should like to make and one question which I wish to ask. I should like to know, first, whether the procedure under the Bill will come into operation automatically, or whether an Order-inCouncil or something of that sort will be necessary. When will the courts begin to function—when there is an actual emergency, or after some Order has been made?

Sir J. Anderson: If I may be permitted to do so, I can answer that now. The proposal is that all necessary steps should be taken forthwith to provide for such number of courts as is likely to be required, but that the actual coming into operation of any court should be dependent upon a declaration by the appropriate Minister of a state of emergency, in the terms of the Statute, in a particular area.

Major Milner: I think that clears up that point in a perfectly satisfactory manner. With regard to the constitution of the courts, it is provided that they are to be composed of persons of high judicial experience or persons of a similar character, and here I should like to make a suggestion. There is a great number

of persons who occupy or have occupied high judicial office and also quite a number of members of the Bar, who may presumably fill these posts, who do not hold high judicial office, though many of them are equally as capable as His Majesty's Judges, if I may say so, of discharging these functions. I suggest that we should look rather widely in selecting persons to occupy these positions in preference to giving them to the same individuals time after time. One sees the same County Court Judges or Recorders presiding over conscientious objectors' tribunals and then over aliens tribunals, and so forth, and certain High Court Judges seem to be selected rather more frequently than others for these particular duties. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor—if he is to be consulted, as I imagine will be the case—will look rather widely to find the best type of men to fill these positions.
I should like to support whole-heartedly what the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) said as to the desirability, wherever possible, of putting all essential provisions into Acts of Parliament. I am well aware of the advantage of putting them into Regulations, from more points of view than one, but wherever possible I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who is bringing so many of these matters before us nowadays, will do all he can in the direction I have indicated. Having made these comments, I certainly extend my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think it is a matter of some importance that we have seen in this case—as indeed we have seen on more than one occasion—the very great advantage of having consultations with representative quarters of the House. That procedure has several advantages. It preserves national unity, which in the present circumstances we all desire to preserve, and I should think also that it relieves the right hon. Gentleman of a great many difficulties. He has onerous duties to perform now, and if matters can be decided by agreement I feel that must bring great relief to him, and I am glad to know that that practice will be followed in connection with these Regulations.
I wonder whether I may without impertinence add one further observation. Just as the House gives the right hon.
Gentleman the credit for doing what he thinks to be right in various matters, so I hope that he will give equal credit to those who have to take those matters into consideration. I am sure that the great majority of us in this House are determined on one thing, and that is to leave no stone unturned to ensure the effective prosecution of the war, but we are equally determined to preserve the democratic practice and procedure of this House and its over-riding authority.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I feel that this Amendment makes a very great improvement in the Bill, and if, as I gather, many other Members share that view, I suggest this consideration to them: Is not what has happened in this case a very good illustration of the folly of trying to rush legislation through this House without adequate consideration? If the Government had had their way, this Bill would have been passed through all its stages in one day, and this Amendment would never have been added to the Bill. No doubt at the beginning of the war a very strong case could be made out for passing legislation without adequate discussion. I think that time has passed, and I have been sorry to note a tendency on the part of the Government to continue the process. I hope that what has happened on this Bill will encourage Members in all parts of the House to resist any tendency on the part of the Government to bring in suddenly an important Bill and say, "This is urgent; there is no time to discuss it; we must have it." The time for that has passed, and this Bill provides a very good illustration of the unwisdom of such action.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: As one who took part in the Debates on this Bill I also wish to express my satisfaction, to some extent, with what has been done. I have already told the Home Secretary that I should have liked him to go a little further than he has gone, but I could not expect to get all I want in this wicked world—or in this wicked House, as an hon. Friend remarks. The power of review which is exercised by Parliament has been shown clearly in this case, and I should like to suggest to the Home Secretary that in all these matters he

should see that his good Scottish common sense gets full scope. I have noted that certain sections in the House have wished at times to rush him in one direction on one day and in the opposite direction the next day, and I hope that he will exercise his common sense and discretion in the difficult times through which we are passing—that he will display the same common sense as he has shown in accepting this Amendment in dealing with other difficult problems which come before him.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my gratitude to the Home Secretary is not as fulsomely expressed as that of some hon. Members this afternoon, I am none the less sincerely glad that this Amendment is to be embodied in the Bill. It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), but I feel that when he warned the Government against attempting to rush legislation so quickly through the House, he was uttering a warning that was needed at this time. The Home Secretary brought this Bill to the House and attempted to get it through all its stages in a single evening, and if the House had acquiesced in that action we should not have got even the small improvement in this Bill which we have now secured. I agree with the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and others that a great deal depends upon what goes into the Regulations, and I can assure the Home Secretary that the House will watch the Regulations with some care, because frankly there has grown up recently a suspicion that the Executive is attempting to take more power than it needs to take even in this time of dire peril. This Bill is a good example of the Executive attempting to take to itself more authority than it should take. Although the Home Secretary has met us in a full and frank way, we must still remember that he would not have done so had the House not forced him to do it. Therefore, although we are grateful to him for meeting us and keeping his word to us, nevertheless we have to realise that what thanks are due are due to the House as a whole and not to the Government. It seems to me a pity that in these modern times, when to most people the House of Lords has become a body of very little use, democracy should have to look to the House of Lords to help it to safeguard its liberties.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has no right to criticise another place in that manner.

Mr. Hall: I, of course, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will content myself by saying that it is a fact that this improvement, the one improvement we have managed to make in this Bill, has been made in another place.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I do so to remind him and other hon. Members that this Amendment did not wholly originate in another place. It was the result of discussions in which many hon. Members here participated.

Mr. Hall: I do not wish to pursue the matter further. I was going on to say, when I was interrupted, that it is my view that had we not persuaded the Home Secretary to meet us in this matter it is more than likely that in another place this or a similar Amendment would have been inserted in the Bill. I base that view on the fact that 20 years ago, when another war was in progress, it was the Members of the other place who insisted upon safeguards going into similar Measures when they were being passed into law. With those observations I should like to say that I agree with what other Members have said in expressing thanks to the Home Secretary for implementing his promise; and I would finally express the hope that this Measure, bad as it is, will not have to be used in the emergency in which we now are.

Captain W. T. Shaw: Could the Home Secretary tell us when we may expect the Regulations mentioned in this Amendment? Shall we have them before the Recess?

4.28 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: That is a difficult question to answer. I am asked whether Regulations will be tabled before some date of which I have no knowledge whatever. The first draft of the Regulations is expected from the printers to-day, and I hope that no time will be lost in entering upon the consultations which have been promised, and I hope that the Regulations will be passed in the course of next week.

Mr. De la Bère: May I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Mem-

ber for Burton (Colonel Gretton) upon the very fine work he has done on this Bill? I think the whole House will feel very grateful to him for all that he has done.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House is no doubt aware that Parliament has granted to the Government very wide and drastic powers to deal with the question of food production, powers wider and more drastic than were conferred upon my predecessors in the last war. The other day when I was speaking, I promised the House that if I found that I needed more powers I should not hesitate to come and ask the House for them. In the short time which has elapsed I have come to the conclusion that further powers are required to fill up the gaps that we have discovered. The Bill does not enunciate from the start any great new agricultural policy, but is designed merely to supplement our existing powers. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I run rapidly through the Clauses, and explain what they contain.
Clause I deals with drainage. As the House knows, powers have been granted in the past, and have been used, for the improvement of the lower reaches of rivers, obviously the first part of any drainage scheme. When the lower reaches of rivers have been dealt with, then comes the turn of the tributary streams higher up. Finally, come the development and improvement of the drainage on individual farms. In the past, grants have been made and legislation has been passed to secure the cleaning out of ditches, and for what is known as mole drainage. There is another form of drainage which is very important, more especially on the lighter land, and it is known as tile or stone drainage. The Clause enables us to give grants, on the same lines as the


existing mole-drainage grants, for drainage by other methods, such as tile or stone drainage, and, secondly, it enables us to simplify the procedure for ditch clearing schemes and to assimilate it to the mole-drainage procedure, so that all forms of farm drainage can be treated on the same basis.
The arrangements made under the Act for mole drainage have worked very well, and although they have been in operation for only a short time there is a steady and increasing influx of schemes. As regards tile drainage, the object of the Bill is to give a grant towards starting new tile drains and also to improve existing tile drains. It has been found that although a great deal of the country has old systems of tile drainage which, through long neglect, have ceased to work, they are capable of being made to work again by clearing out the ditches and by repairing the tiles. The Bill enables us to do so. We intend to give grants to cover not merely installation of new tile drainage but making existing tile drainage systems work again. One point of some practical importance is that a great deal of the trouble with the old tile drainage has been caused by the fact that the place where the old tile drains run is not known exactly. We have therefore added the condition to the new scheme that, when application is made for grants of new tile drainage, a plan should be deposited at the same time so that, at any later date, it will be possible to find out where the drains are and to repair them if necessary.
I might mention that until the beginning of this year grants for ditching were ineligible if they were merely for work undertaken on an individual holding. Since 1st January last this ban has been removed. The arrangements for ditching work have also been open to the objection that the grants could be made only through a drainage authority. Under the Clause ditching schemes will be put on the same footing as the various kinds of field drainage and all forms of farm drainage will in future be dealt with by the county war agricultural executive committees. The only other point is that Sub-section (2) of the Clause provides that, where a tenant, in pursuance of a notice served on him on behalf of a war agricultural executive committee, carries out mole drainage work, he shall be

entitled under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, to compensation for that part of the expenditure incurred by him, but not for the part which is represented by the grant.
Clause 2 deals with the difficulty that arises in the case of grass roads over certain fen land. No doubt, in the old days, the grass roads were sufficient for the traffic, but, with the development of motor transport, they have become wholly insufficient and inadequate to bear the increased loads. Up till now, it has proved impossible to reach agreement to make new roads, because one or two owners or occupiers of the land were unwilling to make the necessary contribution. We therefore propose to take powers to make the grass roads into hard roads at the expense of the Government, and through the war agricultural executive committees, and to recover from the owners whose land will have been enhanced in value because of that work. Hon. Members will see that Sub-section (3) of the Clause provides the machinery. The owner is not to be charged a greater sum than the enhanced value of his land due to the work, and the total to be recovered from all the owners affected is not to be greater than the total cost of the work. In addition to that, it is intended to provide for the maintenance of these roads when once they have been constructed. Therefore, we are taking powers to authorise internal drainage boards to levy rates for the maintenance of the roads. In addition, there is provision enabling owners to pay the cost over a period of years.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Do I understand that the reference is to the increased value of the holdings and not to the actual cost of the work which has been done? Sometimes, when the work is done by Government authorities, the charge may not be worth what has been done.

Mr. Hudson: We can trust the war agricultural executive committees to make sure that the work is done as economically as possible.

Sir J. Lamb: Is the rate to be limited to the increased value of the holding, and not to the actual money expended?

Mr. Hudson: It cannot be greater than the enhanced value which has resulted to the land.

Mr. A. Bevan: Can it be greater than the actual cost?

Mr. Hudson: No, it cannot be greater than the cost. I will not try to explain the mathematical complexities involved in the Sub-section, but, if it is of any use to hon. Members, I will insert in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the factors involved. Perhaps an hon. Member will put down a Question.

Mr. MacLaren: If the cost of the improvement is, in fact, in excess of the actual increase in value of the contiguous land, it gives rise to the question now being asked, whether the landowner will be charged only for the increase in the land value or be charged the full amount?

Mr. Hudson: He will be charged on the increased value of the land.

Colonel Gretton: Does the Clause cover the case where a bad tenant has let his land run down by neglecting the work, and the landlord is not in a position to get rid of that bad tenant? The land has suffered owing to bad cultivation.

Mr. Hudson: I am afraid that that case is not covered by the Clause, which only deals with land which we want to get back into cultivation, fairly extensive tracts of land, where the difficulty is that there is no access to the land because there are no hard roads. It is believed that the land will be enhanced in value by the existence of the roads. It is a very complicated matter.
Clause 3 extends for seven years the period specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Agricultural Act, 1937, during which the Minister will be entitled to make payments to the owners of herds of cattle for the purpose of eradicating bovine tuberculosis.
We come to Clause 4. The House is aware that tenants of grass land may require protection against the terms of their leases, which very often prevent them from ploughing up that land. It is not always possible to make sure that the order to plough up the land is served on the farmer before the ploughing up actually starts. The Clause is intended to enable us to treat the order to plough up as having been served, even though it may in fact have been served after the

ploughing up has started. This provision is for the duration of the
As to Clause 5, we have found that, in a certain number of cases where an order has been made for a farmer or owner to carry out work, and the owner or occupier has not carried it out, we have only two resources open to us. One is to prosecute the man. The necessary preparation for doing that takes a long time. Even if it is successful, the proper time for carrying out the work has often passed, and it is, therefore, an extremely unsatisfactory procedure. The only other remedy is for the committee to go in and do the work at the public expense, but that again is not very satisfactory. Therefore, the Clause gives the committee power to require an owner or occupier to perform a certain act and, if he does not do it, to go in and do it for him and to recover the cost, as well as prosecuting him, if the case requires that course.
The remaining two Clauses of the Bill apply only to Scotland and are self-explanatory. Clause 6 extends the powers as to drainage, that the Secretary of State for Scotland has at present, of securing the cleansing and scouring of the channels of watercourses. A great deal of land could be brought back into cultivation, and the Clause gives the necessary authority. It also makes some consequential alterations with regard to the power to recover from the owners of land.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Does that apply only to Scotland?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, only to Scotland. Clause 8 is designed to simplify the procedure in cases where my right hon. Friend desires to requisition land devoted to sport or recreation. At present he has to obtain a certificate from the executive committee. I have explained as shortly as I can the main objects of these Clauses. The House will realise, as I have already said, that this Bill is designed merely to supplement our existing powers and to try and shorten as far as possible any delay that may in future arise in carrying on this intensified campaign of increasing food production.

4.46 P.m.

Mr. Jackson: Before addressing myself to the Bill before the House, I would like to say one word of congratulation to the Minister of Agri-


culture and to the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not know whether I can include the Secretary of State for Scotland, because I do not know what he has been doing—on the hard work and enthusiasm which they have been putting into their new task. All I hope is that this hard work and energy will be translated into a great increase in food production in the months and years to come and that, assisted by their efforts, the agricultural industry may be able to do what I believe every farmer and farmworker in the country is wanting to do, namely, to play their full part in the conduct and winning of this war. I know that the Minister is making a big effort to clear away red tape and vested interests so that the work can be accelerated, and I believe that this Bill will contribute a little towards attaining that end. This is not an important Bill, I know, but it does move in the right direction, and I feel certain that it will meet with very little opposition or criticism from this House except on the ground that it may not go far enough in some directions.
I do not intend to deal with the Bill Clause by Clause, but I will just make a few brief observations on it generally. I believe that when the original Bill was introduced by the previous Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir R. Dorman-Smith), the present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture described it as
a miscellaneous collection of odds and ends,
and he also suggested that the Bill as a whole was a
weak, tubercular and miserable
child. I must admit that at the time when it was introduced I could agree with him, but it is astonishing what two capable nurses have been able to do—perhaps I should have said three—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four.")—with even this puny infant. If I may use a farming illustration, it is often the case in our part of the country that if what is called a. misgo—that is a very small pig which sometimes appears in a litter, the same kind of pig as I believe is referred to in other parts of the country as the parson's pig—is given to one of your workmen, very often his wife will look after it so well that it outgrows all its lustier brothers and sisters. I hope this Bill will

grow in the same way and will bring about good results, although I am still certain that many Bills of a much more sweeping character than this will have to be passed before farming will attain its maximum results. I read a very forcible article in last week's "Sunday Express" which, no doubt, the Minister will have read. It suggested that the aim of British agriculture at the present moment should be the production of another £300,000,000 worth of homegrown food. I should not like to set the Minister such a difficult task, but I believe that he could go a long way towards attaining that goal if he were prepared to take all the means possible. As an instance of what a tremendous increase in production can be made, I would like to remind the Minister that he has lately visited the county in which I live, and I believe, from what he said to me after that visit, that he was very pleased with the way in which it was farmed. Yet the same week Sir George Stapledon, whose name is now so familiar to all agriculturists, speaking at our county town, Hereford, said that of the 350,000 acres of grassland in the county 210,000 were of a low yield of production, 83,000 of second unit production and only 4.63 per cent, capable of producing 100 to 150 lbs. of meat per acre. If this is the case in Herefordshire, I shudder to think what is the percentage of bad grass in some of our poorer counties. This is an example which shows what tremendous scope there still is for improvement in our land and through that for increased production.
This is shown to anyone who goes on a railway journey. I have to come up to town each week, and I notice the state of our farming. One sees field after field of poor grass covered with nettles and thistles, acres and acres of wasted, sprawling hedgeland, and dilapidated farmhouses and buildings. One then realises how much work lies before future Ministers of Agriculture before they should be satisfied, and one also wonders whether Bills like this are sufficient to bring about such radical changes.

Mr. De la Bère: No, they are not. They are no good.

Mr. Jackson: I should like to mention a word about drainage. I know that what is contained in this Bill will be welcomed by all, but I hope that the Minister


will not be disappointed if full use is not at once made of the scheme because there is so much extra work being taken on in food production that farmers may not be able to find time or labour to carry out work on the lines suggested in the Bill unless the Minister is prepared to supply the labour. I do not wish to dwell on the question of drainage, because I know that I can leave it to discussions among the experts from the Eastern counties who know so much more about it than do we who dwell in the hilly lands of the West. Perhaps the Minister will be pleased to know that his efforts in initiating drainage schemes have already had one effect, and that is to bring pleasure into the life of the otherwise melancholy and hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell).
The powers which the Minister now possesses and which are added to by this Bill makes the control of agricultural land more complete, and he is able to give to the county agricultural committees a very wide and sweeping power. It seems to me most important, therefore, that these war agricultural committees should be composed of the best brains that can be found in our agricultural districts, and I hope that the Minister will get rid of those committees or committee members who, he thinks, are not up to their job. I know it is unpleasant to dismiss people who are working for you to the best of their ability without reward, but in times like these one must be ruthless. If I could make one criticism of the composition of these committees, I would suggest that they are in the main composed too much of elderly people, and I would like to see one or two younger and more progressive farmers on each committee. Let your farming members be the best in the industry, regardless of wealth or social position, and keep off the committees all those peculiar people who call themselves "gentlemen farmers." I believe that on the whole these committees are working well, and I would like to make one or two suggestions by which the Minister could increase their powers with advantage.
My first suggestion is that he should give these committees or some other authority under these committees the power to take over all gardens which are not properly cultivated. They have at present some authority over professional

market gardens, but not over private gardens. Many of these gardens—and I speak with a knowledge of small country towns and country districts—are going to rack and ruin, and the worst cases are those in the larger county towns and the larger houses which have been taken over either by the military, the Air Force or the Navy.

An Hon. Member: Or by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. McKie: May I put a question to the hon. Gentleman? Does he not realise that in many cases the reason that these gardens have gone out of cultivation is the inability of the owner to pay the rate of wages which he would wish to do? He is the only person in the agricultural community who is not protected.

Mr. Jackson: This may seem a small matter, but I do not think it is so, because during the last two or three weeks my wife and my gardener have been judging county gardens in Hereford, and I have been delighted and surprised at the large amount of fruit and vegetables which have been grown in such small gardens. They must be a tremendous contribution to the food of the nation. I think that the Minister should attend to this point if he can find time. I do not want to blame a great number of people whose gardens are uncultivated, because we know that many of them belong to soldiers in the Army or to people who are working in the factories on munitions for long hours.
Another source of waste to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention is the neglected and overgrown common lands all over the country, over which no control is exercised. I know that the Minister has in my county authorised the cutting of injurious weeds on one common, but I wish to see further powers taken to deal with all waste and common land. Many of these are producing nothing but bracken and briars and are only grazed to a small extent by sheep, goats and poultry. There is no authority by which they are controlled, with the result that they are practically derelict and serve only as rubbish dumps for the surrounding houses. There is no meeting of commoners, and no one seems to be responsible for the matter. Cannot the Minister


have powers, at least in war time, to cultivate commons which are in this state, so that they may be made to produce a very full quota of food? I know of one very good example where a common adjoins farmland. This year, the farmer has reclaimed some of the land adjoining this common, and is getting magnificent crops. This common should be made to produce quite a good crop. No hardship need ensue to commoners. It would be sufficient to compensate them by allowing each to have a patch for his own use for a specific number of years. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary stated several weeks ago that where it is felt that a crop could be obtained at the next harvest it would be quite reasonable for the councils to plough up any portion of common land. But that does not go far enough. I hope he will realise that he is charged with the responsibility of securing the maximum productivity of every common acre. He should have asked for more powers for ploughing land taken over by other Government Departments.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

5.1 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

Emergency Powers (Defence) (No. 2) Act, 1940.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Jackson: I was suggesting that the Minister should take further powers in respect of land taken over by other Government Departments. In my own district it has come to my notice recently that three large farms were acquired by a Government Department for building premises for storage. While expressing no view as to the urgency of the circumstances which necessitated the taking over of this land, I know that but for the action of the Minister, through the local war agricultural committee, many acres of growing crops would have been wasted.
Almost by accident, it came to the knowledge of the local commissioner that the Government contractors had commenced operations, and were beginning, with their caterpillar excavators, to enter upon some hundreds of acres of standing corn, wheat, oats and other crops, prior to building operations. If the entry could have been delayed even for three weeks these crops could have been harvested and made available for human food. The local war agricultural committee were informed by the local commissioner of the destruction and waste which were taking place, and they immediately got to work. Through their enterprise and quick action, they were able to arrange for the bulk of these crops to be cut, put through a drying process, and converted into useful feeding stuffs for cattle. They were also able to lift the potatoes and market them locally, and to arrange for the standing hay crops in the meadows to be cut. All credit is doe to the Minister and the committee for the prompt action they took. According to my information, within a few hours of hearing what was happening, they tool steps to commence harvesting. Had it not been for this prompt action, these valuable crops would have been completely wasted. But my point is that if there had been greater co-operation between the Departments concerned it might have been possible to prevent any destruction of human food.
In Clause 5 I note that the Minister takes power to recover expenses undertaken to get rid of vermin, pests, etc. I was sorry to hear the other day the Minister say that he did not believe that very much damage was done by foxes in the country. I do not think that his reply is correct. He may not have had many complaints, but country people have long been thought to put up with the damage done by foxes without complaining, and I doubt very much whether he will hear of many complaints. But I know from personal experience in my own district how much damage to our food supplies foxes can do. I myself lost 13 lambs this spring out of a small flock of 100 ewes, and several of my neighbours suffered similar losses in larger or smaller percentages, and many others I know in the district have lost a great deal of their poultry. Much as we like to see the hunt—and what is more beautiful than the pack in full cry on a frosty November morning?—times like these are too serious


to permit such a waste of human food, and I hope that the Minister will see that a very strict control of foxes is kept.
I should also like to see provision made in this Bill to give the Minister authority to empower war agricultural committees to deal with a state of things which have occurred in some districts of which I know. I have been given to understand on very praiseworthy information that some farmers are not employing at the present moment as many regular workers on their land as they were even a few months ago. Obviously, with so much more land under arable cultivation, they ought to be employing a great many more, and the reason that some of them give, and have given me, is that they cannot afford to pay the new and the higher wages. Farmers should be made to realise, however, that this year's crops in the main have been produced under lower wage levels, and I understand the Minister is prepared to review prices for next year's crop when these higher wages will be taken into consideration. Some power should be given to prevent farmers from getting rid of many of their regular men at the present juncture. However, the bulk of the farmers that I meet are prepared to pay these new wages, and they are satisfied that the new schedules of prices, with one or two exceptions, which, I hope, may be altered, are very fair. The prices that are perhaps not as good as they ought to be are those for potatoes, sugar beet and wool. Before I leave the question of prices there is a point which I would like the Minister to clear up for me, as I fear there may be some misunderstanding about it later. It is with regard to oats, and I think it applies partly to barley. The price of 14s. 6d., which is talked about so much, is, I understand, the maximum price, and when it was announced representations were made asking that there should be a bottom put in as well as a ceiling. A further announcement has been made that there is to be a standard price of 11s. 6d. per cwt. fixed under the Agricultural Development Act to provide a subsidy—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I cannot find anything in the Bill dealing with the price of oats.

Mr. Jackson: I will leave that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not know

whether I shall be in order if I refer to a branch of the industry in which I am most interested, namely, that of fruit growing. The county committees have the power to decide what acreage shall be cultivated in any district in an ensuing year. Though I agree with the Minister of Food in the policy which he propounded a few weeks ago when he stated that the most important foodstuffs to he produced were potatoes, milk and vegetables—and no one would quarrel with him on that—I would like him to have added fruit to the list. Although I know that that diet is quite adequate, it is very boring, and fruit would add to the enjoyment and quality of our diet. I understand that, taking it year in and year out, there is really a great deal more food value obtained from an acre of soft fruits such as gooseberries, blackcurrants, raspberries, and even strawberries, than can be produced from an acre of grass. I also understand that under the regulations of the county committees this acreage is going down very badly, and I hope that the Minister will look into the matter and see whether he cannot alter his policy in some way and so allow more fruit to be grown. Unless more fruit is grown the soft fruits will become very dear and will only be available to rich people; poor people will not be able to have any at all.
I had hoped also that in this Bill the Minister would have been able to make some grant towards the grubbing-up of derelict orchards and the reconditioning of scrubland. I hope that he will think of that for some future occasion, and perhaps include it in his next Bill. From the information I receive from the counties I understand that they are now waiting anxiously for a lead from the Minister. They are anxious to know as soon as possible what areas he expects to be ploughed up this autumn and what particular crops he desires to be sown on the ploughed-up land. It will be a great help to farmers if they can get this information as soon as possible.
These are a few suggestions that I make as a practical farmer, and I hope that the Minister will give them his passing examination. I should like to congratulate him upon his visits to the various county committees, which have been very much appreciated. By doing this he has been able to make personal contact, not


only with the members of these committees, but, what is still more important, with the chairmen of the committees, and he has thus been able, I am sure, to obtain information and local atmosphere which he could not assimilate very satisfactorily in any other way. I know that the party for which I am speaking to-day has been considered in the past mainly a party interested in urban areas. There may have been some justification for this view once upon a time, but I assure the Minister that it is not so to-day. He can go as far as he wishes in bringing about the rejuvenation of our countryside and the production of food in war time and in peace time, and he will find us always urging him on.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: The note of all the speeches since four o'clock has been one of gratitude: I should like to continue that harmony, and though I have no geographical constituency, it would be very ungrateful if anyone coming from that part of the country where I live did not say a word of thanks for the second Clause in this Bill. I think that, as far as concerns making the roads of the Fens practicable, the Clause now proposes to do everything which we can reasonably ask and perhaps do it in the right manner, but I wish to ask the Minister one question. It is whether in practice it is quite certain that what is here promised on paper can be done? There are some schemes undertaken already—there is certainly at least one scheme where the contractor has started, but has had to be stopped because he cannot foresee the date when he can get cement. It is true that whereas gravel and chalk roads might be made to increase food production for a year or two, I do not think that they would fulfil the object of the Bill, or that they could very easily be brought into the machinery of the Bill in respect to covering the cost. I think there will be no difficulty about recovering the cost if roads are properly done, but if roads are put down which from experience we know do not last, the recovery of cost will be extremely difficult. No one would ask that cement, which the military authorities, with their hands on their hearts, after having been asked three times, continue to assert to be absolutely necessary for Defence should be diverted to

any other purpose. But I ask that the Minister should assure us that the military authorities and the Ministry of Supply, and, if necessary, the Ministry of Transport will be pressed in this connection so that we may be sure that these roads will be got on with quickly, because every week makes a very great difference. We should be assured that this work would not be held up for anything short of absolutely irresistible military considerations.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I also would like to thank the Minister for various Clauses in this Bill. It is the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, and when the No. 1 Bill came before the House before the time of the present Minister of Agriculture some gaps were pointed out and some suggestions were made which the present Bill goes a long distance to meet. In particular, I think I shall be expressing the general opinion in the North-West of England when I say that we are very grateful for the tile drainage subsidy. If this had been done a few years ago the land, which will now be drained by this assistance, might have been improved so that it would have been in good heart at the present time when it is needed. However, we are very grateful for it now. I am sorry that the Minister did not tell us a little more about the Bill and especially about Clause 3, dealing with payments in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to tell us a little more about the scheme which, I believe, is going ahead well. We all welcome the continuation of the assistance. It is a big thing in itself, and I for one, at any rate, would like to hear some of the facts about its development.
I raised the question of soft roads, along with another hon. Member, on the No. 1 Bill, and I would like to ask a question in connection with Clause 2, which deals with the position. Is it really considered that the internal drainage boards are the right people to maintain roads. I ask that question with an open mind because I am not familiar personally with the conditions, but it seems to me that there must be a very definite reason why the local highway authority is not charged with this responsibility,


and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain why this new departure and responsibility is placed upon the drainage authority. In the Debate on the No. 1 Bill we discussed the question of drainage, and as I have already said, the new provision for tile drainage meets the position to a large extent, and the considerable assistance which the Minister is to give by making grants to a scheme affecting only one farmer is a very welcome provision.
What strikes me about this Bill is that it deals with long-term improvements which will have an immediate effect on production. It involves a good deal of capital improvement for farming which will be very much welcomed, but what does leave a big gap is the subject discussed on the No. 1 Bill, namely, the question of credit. I regret that I have to return to this subject, but I ask the Minister, when he replies, to tell us whether it is not the case that, in the reports he has received from those who are conducting the survey at farms at the present time, one of the outstanding facts is the need for greater facilities for capital to increase production. I do not think it is necessary to make that case. It has been recognised that more capital is necessary. If it is not necessary, why is the Minister paying £2 an acre subsidy? If the industry has plenty of capital, why, in this Bill, is there provision to spread the capital cost that will fall on the landowner for drainage over five years? It is because he cannot afford to do it in one year. Surely the provision for machinery is an indirect way of assisting the farmer who cannot afford to buy it. In all these and other ways the Ministry of Agriculture, the Minister and the House, in passing legislation of this kind, have recognised that one of the outstanding needs of the industry at the present time is for both long-term and short-term capital. I think I see the Minister shaking his head, but I do ask him, What are his reports from those who are making the survey?
There has been legislation in the past which has tried to provide this capital, but it has not been a great success. We are now told that the banks are to provide capital, but there are difficulties about that. First, there is the rate of interest, which is a consideration, and I cannot

believe that the farming community as a whole does not resent the fact that railway companies get their loans at 2½ per cent. while they have to pay 5 per cent. I have heard many farmers talking about that. Last time we discussed this question in the House I think it was stated that 1 per cent. one way or the other made very little difference to the farming community, but as a result of an answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) we have learned that the banks have lent approximately £50,000,000—

Mr. De la Bère: £53,000,000.

Mr. Roberts: One or two per cent. on that is a considerable sum, taking the agricultural community as a whole. If money is being lent at the present time at 4 or 5 per cent., that is, roughly speaking, £2,500,000—the difference between 5 per cent. and 2½ per cent. That is a sum which is equalled by many of the subsidies which are paid. There is a real problem here, and it is not only a question of interest. That perhaps is not the most important side of it—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I must warn the hon. Member that he is entitled to criticise the lack of credit provisions of the Bill but not to discuss the details of a credit scheme.

Mr. Roberts: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I thought I was dealing broadly with the problem. After all, this Bill does make provision for increasing agricultural production, and the broad point I wanted to make was that I thought one of the main difficulties not yet tackled, although many have been tackled by the Ministry, was the question of the shortage of capital which does exist. There are provisions in this Bill in regard to taking over land in Scotland and elsewhere. If a farmer is turned out by force by the Minister for farming his land badly—an example of which we had in the south of England a few days ago, when a man resisted—there is put in as a tenant either the Ministry's own nominee or someone who has plenty of money. If it is the Ministry's nominee, the war agricultural executive take over, and they farm the land with abundant capital. Of course, they can make a difference. Farmers in the neighbourhood say "If Mr. So-and-so had had the advantages which the


Minister of Agriculture has, with all the money of the State behind him, he could have made those fields produce crops." That is a very shrewed and sound view on the part of the farmers. The farming industry has been drained of its capital—

Mr. MacLaren: By whom?

Mr. Kirkwood: By the landowners.

Mr. Roberts: By various circumstances. The Minister has recommended that in some instances a farm which is, perhaps, fattening cattle on grass at the present time, or dairying, should have all its stock removed and the land ploughed up for the growing of arable crops. I can think of farms where that would be a suitable procedure, but that will cost money, especially on the grazing farms where Irish cattle has been brought and is being grazed during the summer. How can the farmer meet his wages, seed and fertilizer bills, starting, as he should, to-morrow, with the prospect that he will get no income from that land until over a year hence? The Minister said he had chatted with the banks, which would give accommodation, but that is not the real way to deal with this difficult problem. I have an overdraft myself with a large bank. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are lucky."] I know I am lucky, and that many farmers cannot get one, and if I had not had some other securities, I dare say I should not have been so favourably treated. Once a year, or at more frequent intervals, my bank asks me for the present valuation of my stock, and my overdraft relates to the existing stock on my farm. The less stock I have, the more overdraft. I need to increase that stock. A bad farmer with very little stock gets very little accommodation, and there has been no evidence that the present working of the joint stock banks does meet this problem. It will, I know, be met eventually by the prices which the Minister has fixed, but that is a slow and expensive way of doing it. It will give considerable profits to the more tortunately placed farmer, but raising prices is a slow way of increasing production.
I see you looking at me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and perhaps I have said enough; but my final point to the Minister is

this: It is recognised now that what was said on the Committee stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) (No. 1) Bill, about a requisite scheme, was perfectly correct. So far, £32,000 has been lent, which is absolutely derisory and of no importance whatever, but that Bill has done one thing and I think I may claim credit for having foreseen it. It has demarcated the class of man who is absolutely unworthy of credit. It has hastened the bankruptcy of farmers. People have said, "Mr. So-and-so had to go to the war agricultural executive committee for credit. He must be in a very had state."

Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the people who are in extremis all the time are still required to pay 5 or 6 per cent.?

Mr. Roberts: I quite agree, but I will not labour the point any further, except to say that I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. He has been very active and energetic, and we wish him every success, but I am sure he will agree with the industry that better credit facilities are needed. There are dozens of schemes pigeon-holed in the Ministry of Agriculture. It may be a difficult problem, but if it is, that is all the more reason why it should be tackled. It is not a problem which faces this country or farmers alone. I do not believe there is a single European or agricultural country in the world that does not provide special facilities for credit for farmers. It has been found to be universally necessary because of the special type of business that farming is. I ask, therefore, that this should have the consideration of the Minister and that when we have the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) (No. 3) Bill we shall have this gap filled.

5.44 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: As one who farms in a small way and who is interested in farming, through my family, which farms several thousand acres, I want, briefly, to make two practical suggestions. I think that if the Minister has his reports from different parts of the country he will find that some of the land which has been ploughed up has not produced satisfactory results because it was ploughed up with too light ploughs. It is very important indeed that new land, especially in some parts of the


country, should be ploughed up with caterpillar tractors, heavy ploughs, and heavy disc harrows. I should be grateful if the Minister would again look into that and see whether caterpillar tractors could not be made available, through licensed contractors or county agricultural committees, so that a day should not be wasted and they could be sent round from farm to farm. This is of great importance and would greatly increase production.
There is another point on which I have had some communication with the Minister. It is a vital necessity that we should have more threshing plants ready for the Autumn. I know of one plant which never went out at all from the yard last year because they could not get men to work it and it was not in proper repair. I hope that as many new threshing plants as possible will be bought and that existing plants will be repaired and put into working order. Again it is so important that, when threshing plants go wrong, time should not be wasted by travelling from remote farms to remote farms. If they could be made centrally available, time would not be lost in going from farm to farm. I have been asked by my farming friends to put these two points before the Minister.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: We have had two or three very interesting speeches on this Bill. I was specially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). I think he must have influence with his bank manager. He went to see him and came out with an overdraft. When I went for one I was told to call again. This Bill is produced by the new Ministry of all the talents, but, I am afraid, with very little practical experience. They laboured very heavily to produce it but have produced only a very small Bill with a great deal of labour. I think the country was entitled to expect something more comprehensive and definite than this totally inadequate Measure. The ploughing-up of land in order to increase the production of food is on the right lines but is not nearly big enough in relation to the problem that confronts us. The policy aimed at should not only be to increase the acreage of arable land but to increase the productivity of land already under the

plough, and to achieve this end several important aspects of the problem are involved. Firstly, the disposability of land has been put upon the agricultural committees, which in some cases consist of fairly substantial farmers who report their neighbours for inefficient farming to the war agricultural committee. This is very distasteful to them, and in many cases where action has not been taken that is the reason, though there is plenty of evidence that farming is not being efficiently done.
With regard to ploughing, labour is the first problem. We have it on the authority of the Minister that already over 40,000 skilled men have been taken out of the industry. If we are going to extend the area—and we ought to extend it very considerably—it is essential to take steps to provide skilled labour. Men have been taken into the Army who would have been contributing far more effectively to winning the war had they been allowed to stay on the farms. To talk about substitute labour to take the place of these highly skilled craftsmen is just talking nonsense. I have tried once or twice to get men who have been taken released. Only this week the only man on a small farm of about 60 acres has been taken. No one is left but a widow My next success in getting anyone released from the Army to go back to the land will be my first. I have failed in every attempt so far. Are there no means left to us to secure the release of a substantial number of these skilled craftsmen?
To increase the production of food is as important as to increase the production of ships—in fact, I think, more important at the present juncture. Indeed, if a real and determined effort is made in this direction, it will conserve shipping for use in bringing to our shores other essential raw materials and munitions so necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. As I understand it, the Bill in itself is a war effort, but I hope we shall not allow agriculture ever to go back to its previous condition. The task ahead of us is too important and urgent as a great defensive measure to be trifled with in these momentous days. I remember in my very early days in the Socialist movement reading a book called "Fields, Factories and Workshops," written by Prince Kropotkin, in which


he answered the query, "Could England feed herself?" He answered it in the affirmative. That may be questioned, but it cannot be questioned that at the very least we could have doubled the amount of food we produce by a system of higher and more intensive cultivation. The book left a lasting impression on my mind that, if agriculture was neglected then, it has been neglected more since and is even to-day being neglected.
I believe that efficient labour and cheap money will have to be provided if the drive for increased production is to be successful. This presents some difficulties, but these can and must be overcome if the campaign is to succeed to the extent that we all so much desire. The hon. Member for North Cumberland went to his bank and marched out with an overdraft on the strength of the stock on his farm, which the bank manager assumed belonged to him, but it is not unknown for a farmer to obtain an overdraft on the strength of stock which happened to belong to someone else who was only paying for grazing, and the bank has been left with the baby. I think the whole problem would not now be so serious if heed had been taken of the appeals which some of us have made over the past decade for the fixing of a reasonable price for all agricultural produce, which in turn would have made possible the better cultivation of the soil and the retention on the land of the brain and the brawn so essential to this vital industry. In common with many others, therefore, I regret that cheaper money is not provided for this new development in agriculture. The hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) deserves great credit for his constant advocacy of this reform.
What is the present picture of things? In travelling from Crewe on Tuesday I saw a field in which there were three crops—docks, thistles and a little corn. That is a correct description of field after field. I went out at the week-end, and in one-half of a field of oats you could not see a single oat. The other half was pretty good. Half of the field was covered with thistles. Yet the House has passed an Act to compel the cutting down of noxious weeds, such as ragwort, thistles, and docks. That Act is very largely a dead letter, for two reasons. First, the farmers could not afford to pay for the

labour to hoe the corn so that the thistles could be kept down and the corn finally smother them. Secondly, there was the difficulty of getting labour. No serious attempt has been made by the Minister to enforce the provisions of the Act. The dead hand of the administration has been put upon it, and where it has been a question of money being required, there has been the old statement "subject to the approval of the Treasury." The Act is a dead letter because of the difficulties of cost and labour. What does the Minister intend to do about this, for it is important that the matter should be dealt with now if the best use is to be made of the land? If it were not for the self-binder, I do not know how some of the corn would be cut. I have seen fields in which there was not enough corn to make bands to tie up the thistles. I hope that the Minister will do something to ensure that the provisions of this Act are carried out.
I should like now to refer to drainage. I could never understand why the Ministry should give a grant for mole drainage and not give one for tile drainage. The Minister has stated that tile drainage now comes within this Bill. If that is so, I cannot understand why, as mole drainage was specifically mentioned in the previous Act, tile drainage is not mentioned in this Bill. Anybody with any intelligence knows that over a very large part of the country, mole drainage would be of no use whatever. May I be told definitely whether tile drainage is included in this Bill? It is not mentioned.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ernest Brown): As I shall be replying to the Debate, it might be of advantage if I dealt with this point now. Let me refer to our experience in Scotland. From 1912, under the general powers of the Department of Agriculture, they have done both mole and tile drainage, but in 1937 specific powers were given, without prejudice to the general powers. They were able to do both. The Minister of Agriculture cannot do both because he is limited specifically to mole drainage. That limitation is now removed.

Mr. Quibell: I hope that the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman will be noted, and that the fullest advantage will be taken of it. I could never understand why the Ministry should give


a grant for mole drainage but not give one for the more permanent and beneficial system of tile drainage. I am pleased to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that there is an improvement in that respect in the Bill.

Mr. De la Bère: It is a Treasury quibble to save money.

Mr. Quibell: I am not forgetting that the Treasury have been pretty generous to Scotland. Land drainage is a most important element in the success or otherwise of the attempt to bring back into active cultivation large tracts of land which, at certain times, become waterlogged, and very frequently ruin in a few hours the whole efforts of the farmer for a year. I want to give a picture of two 10-acre fields which I saw a fortnight ago. Near Scunthorpe, where I live, the Scunthorpe council cleaned out one end of a drain, and the new Drainage Board which has been set up cleaned out the other end, but the middle part, into which some trees had fallen, seemed to belong to nobody; it was not known whether the farmers, the landlords, or the authorities—and if the authorities, which authority, since two were concerned—were responsible. The consequence was that there was flooding, because, although both authorities carried out their duties, nothing was done in the middle. Ten acres of wheat and 10 acres of potatoes were under water. At this time of the year, if water remains on potatoes for 24 hours, the potato crop is lost. I hope that the agricultural committees and the drainage authorities will get on with their work, and that every encouragement will be given to them. The Minister will receive all the help I can give him, both in the House and in the country, to induce them to do so; but he will find out that the fight which some of us have made for the past 10 years to get drainage done has been no small fight. But we shall not lose heart, but shall continue the fight until the land is properly drained and the farmers are given a chance to cultivate it.
The case to which I have just referred is not a rare one. How long are the farmers expected to suffer this sort of thing? I want to congratulate the Minister if he is going to take his courage in his hands and deal with his own Department, because it is there that the

trouble has its beginning. Some four years ago I had an interview with officials at the Ministry. My hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Secretary introduced me. A year ago, when I was speaking in the House, my hon. Friend interjected to say that I would soon he over there, where he is now sitting; but he beat me. I could not run as fast as he did. When I went to the Ministry, I stated the case regarding a drainage problem as briefly as I could. They said, "We are administering the Act." Not one suggestion was made for meeting the difficulties of the situation. One of those difficulties was finance. At the time, I protested, as I have often done in the House, against the imposition on agricultural labourers of a heavy drainage rate which they ought never to be called upon to bear. The only reply I got from the Department was that they were administering the Act. The consequence was that nothing was done. A year ago, I attempted again to move the Ministry. There was, again, the old old, story. Inquiries would be made, and an engineer would be sent down. He was sent down, and he reported the facts; but nothing was done. He reported that the facts were as I had given them to the Minister. They could not be denied, for I had given photographs of water in the fields nine inches or twelve inches deep, in July.
At long last, after writing letters and having interviews and talks behind the Speaker's Chair—which are sometimes more useful than speaking from these benches—a move was made. I believe that the present Minister has good intentions, but I hope that he will not lose them in the department. Last week, I received a letter from him stating that at long last the Department had suggested a survey of the district—10 years after the passing of the Act. They suggested a survey; they do not know really what to do with a huge area of rich agricultural land that would grow wheat, potatoes, or anything else. The Minister suggested certain other temporary measures—with which I am quite in agreement—as an expedient until more permanent works could be erected to deal with the problem. That survey should nave been made years ago, but the Treasury grants to the authority concerned were so inadequate as to preclude any possibility of the survey


being made, and we are now suffering as a consequence, and having to pay a very big price for the continued neglect in that area. What has held up the schemes for drainage in that area? Lack of finance. In many other districts the same story is true. I raised this subject on a Motion in the House some years ago, and I withdrew the Motion because the Minister promised an inquiry and legislation to amend the financial provisions of the 1930 Act, to which this Bill and its little brother refer. Again, what was done? Nothing. The answer was that inquiry was being made, and so on. When I put down Questions in the House, the answer I received was that the inquiries were not yet concluded. Year after year that sort of thing went on, and the problem is still with us. I shall he confident that the Minister means business when I see the grants translated into concrete acts.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not the hon. Member realise that the Treasury never intended that anything should be done? That is quite clear.

Mr. Quibell: I think the hon. Member may he right. The Treasury did not intend to find the money, and what is more, the Department has hidden itself behind the Treasury. What are the qualifying words which are always used in matters affecting drainage? They are, "Subject to such conditions as the Treasury may approve." The only thing is that the Treasury does not approve, and consequently nothing is done. Again, these words are put into this Bill, and the Treasury's attitude is, "What extravagant fellows; fancy asking for £10,000 for the whole of Scotland." What a contribution that is to the problem. The dead hand of the Treasury is always at hand, ready and willing to sabotage any scheme—good or bad—whenever it is for drainage.

Mr. De la Bère: Or anything else.

Mr. Quibell: Yes, or anything else. How long will the Minister and this House tolerate the undue use of Regulations and red tape by Departments to thwart efforts to reform and speed up procedure in the very anxious times in which we live? I have interviewed Departments about various matters, and I have frequently

been met with the answer, "That would be creating a precedent." But what are we here for if it is not to create precedents? I appeal to the Minister that he should get on with the job, precedent or no precedent, with the rehabilitation of the great industry of agriculture, and that if officialdom stands in the way, he should take the House into his confidence. In present circumstances Parliament will give him the necessary power to deal with official obstruction to reform in procedure. I hope and trust that this will not be the last Bill, because it is not big enough. I hope the Minister will be big enough for his part, and that the country will be big enough to see that this great industry of agriculture is rehabilitated to enable it to feed this land of ours.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Granville: I desire to say one word on this Bill, and to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on having given us this No. 2 Bill. I should like to re-echo what has been said by various speakers, in all parts of the House, in wishing the right hon. Gentleman well in the enormous task which he has undertaken. I hold the view that more and more his Department will become one of the most important Departments of State. Anyone who has observed the terrific difficulties of our merchant shipping, in making their way around the coasts of this country, will realise that more than ever we are going to depend on home production of food. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced a Bill, and it has met with approval on all sides of the House. I am perfectly certain that it is a very useful Bill, and that it will be very acceptable to the agricultural community.
Representing, as I do, a Suffolk constituency, which is a large arable district in a defence area, I should like to take this opportunity, particularly as the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply to the Debate and knows the area to which I am referring, of appealing to him and the right hon. Gentleman not to forget the fact that this country is not made up of vast farms, but of a number of small farms. These small farms have been living for many years in a period of depression, and they are very anxious to play their part in the war effort and to achieve a maximum food production. From my own experience in the area to which I have referred, the essential problem— and this is


the aspect of the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman is not directing sufficient attention and energy—is how farmers are going to carry on from month to month with an increased outlay for war production. They have had increased wages, and rightly so, but they have also had to spend more money in the purchase of seeding, implements and so on. If they are to produce a bigger quantity of home-grown food for the right hon. Gentleman, it means a bigger outlay of initial expenditure on their part. It is the money they have to find from week to week, and from month to month, which is their essential problem, and that is the reason why, when wages were increased, a number of farmers put off their men on to the Employment Exchanges. They simply had not the money to pay an extra wage. Many of these farmers may be depressed farmers, or poor farmers, or farmers going through very difficult conditions, but they are good farmers nevertheless and are all anxious to play their part in the national war effort.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied with the ordinary method of obtaining credit by a small farmer in a situation such as this mortgaged to the banks and in debt to the merchants. We shall need these farmers in the immediate future and after the war is over. Has the right hon. Gentleman visited this part of the country and seen the conditions for himself? Is he satisfied that these good yeoman producers of food can obtain capital to enable them to carry on an increased food production? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Secretary of State for Scotland not to close their minds to this problem. I appeal to the Government to go a little further and give increased facilities to the farmers through the agricultural war committees. You are going to spend millions of pounds before this war is over. You may economise by saving the button and lose the trousers. Will not the Minister create some simple machinery to enable these sound arable farmers to increase their food production and assist the national effort?

6.24 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: It seems a little unfair to twit the Minister on the size of his Bill or its scope because he, himself, by his attitude towards it, indi-

cated that he did not himself think very much of it. It took him very little time to scan its Clauses, but the significance of it, the Bill, is that it deals with long-term improvements, some of which are pretty long-term improvements, for the short-term food policy the Minister himself has in mind. One wonders how serious the Minister is in promoting these particular Clauses for reforms and developments. Clause 1 indicates that the Minister is once again calling upon the county war agricultural executives to do work for him. That, of course, is one of the things we welcome about it, although it has a significance, because it means that some of us will expect these committees to sit after the war is over. If that is not so it looks peculiarly difficult for them to enter into, say, works in the Fens involving road developments. I would like to ask the Minister for a word of explanation on that point. Does he really mean what he says? Is it intended that these committees shall undertake the work? If they are, they will be taking it over from the county councils.

Mr. Hudson: Mr. Hudson indicated dissent.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister says "No." I know these roads very well, and I have struggled over them in winter-time, and the general view of the community is that the county councils were being pressed to do something in the matter. Whether that is so or not, the point is that the Minister is putting some pretty substantial duties on these particular county war agricultural committees, and before long we hope to have a statement as to where these committees stand in the permanent structure of agriculture, and how far we can expect them to function after the short-term policy has been worked out and the war is ended. Many hon. Members have alluded to the provision of credit, and some feel that these committees may have to be used as a medium for creating credit, not on the lines of No. 2 Bill, but on a more substantial basis. But now he has dealt with Fen roads. Has the Minister any intention of speeding up main drainage schemes in the Fens? It might be a funny affair if a great deal of this work was upset by the breakdown of the main Fen drainage, threatening the largest area of the richest part of the country. One hopes that the Minister will have something to say about the prospects of the main drainage system in the Fens as well as deal with these roads.
I wish to raise another point, bearing on the permanency of these committees. The Minister includes references to the maintenance of grants for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. He states in the Memorandum that it is not unreasonable to suppose that future expenditure will be somewhat less during the war period. Why is it going to be less during the war period? I should have thought there was a danger of the cattle being underfed during the war period, and that constitutional weaknesses are likely to be brought out as a result. The Memorandum on Clause 3 of the Bill states:
It is unreasonable to suppose that future expenditure will be somewhat less during the war period.
A figure of £1,773,000 is to be spent on this work. It makes one feel that if Ministries can advance such a sum for eliminating cattle disease—and to capitalise that expenditure as an annual expenditure it represents an enormous amount—then it seems that some very positive, sustained and actual approach should be made to this problem rather than annual allowances for clearing up a disease which seems to be so persistent.
The Minister admits, although he was rather sketchy on this point, that once again he is to call upon occupiers of land to undertake considerable capital outlays. I am convinced from the fact that he is giving his county committees powers that he expects many of the committees will have to undertake this work themselves. Why? Because the very people whose land will be in this state are precisely those who are incapable of carrying the work out themselves because they are not equipped with capital and cannot furnish the necessary credit. To that extent I submit that the problem of credit comes within the Bill. The Minister is having to provide county committees with powers and, what he will not grant to the farmers, capital and credit to do the work and to carry out schemes in the Bill. He would never dream of authorising the county committees to carry out drainage schemes with the equipment that many of the farmers have for the work. They are in an impossible position. The Minister will put his committees in a position to do this work, but he will withhold the same facilities from individual occupiers of land to do it. That is where his

obstinacy seems to be most marked, and it is difficult to understand.
The right hon. Gentleman should be taking steps to place the farmers in a position to do their own work in the way that he is enabling the county committees to do the work on his own behalf. The fact that he is giving these powers to the committees is an indication of the extent to which he recognises that the farmers are ill-equipped for the job and that he is asking them to do more than they can do. The same thing is arising over wages. We have always stood for a proper wage standard on the land. That standard has now been improved, but it has been improved without full regard to the farmer's capacity to pay the wages and to carry out reconditioning work as well. It is significant that the very men who are wanted for this work are being turned off farms in harvest time because the farmer says, "I am spending no more on my farm than I can afford and no more than I paid out this same week last year. I will use my labour and carry out my undertakings to the degree that my capacity to pay is there, and no more." In consequence, men are being discharged who could do this work and whom the Minister will expect to do it. A farmer I know had to discharge such a mechanic whom he could not pay. And the man was recommended to the county committee, who will employ him. I have no objection to that. On this side of the House we have stood for a greater approximation to a central control of the layout of farming.
We want to see the central direction improved, but we are not in favour of driving men out of the industry in this way simply because the Government will not face dealing with the financial structure of the industry, or make the money interests come into line in this matter, or take measures to provide farmers with instruments of credit at which they will look. It is not a question of the rates of interest; it is the muddle into which the whole thing has got. The farmer is tied up in half-a-dozen different directions, and has got himself into such a tangle that he does not know what to do. Yet the Government are not helping him in this regard but are imposing new liabilities on him all the time. He has to pay increased wages and he is told that he will get good prices, but he will not get them for


another year, and in the meantime he has to make an outlay for the wages. On that point, may I offer the Minister a modest suggestion? It is that instead of dribbling out wheat payments for the crop which is being sold now over the next 12 months, he should pay the farmer the maximum amount possible straight on the nail for his wheat.

Mr. Hudson: That is being done.

Mr. Morgan: I am glad to hear it. I say this in the interest of keeping men on the farm. If the farmer knows that he will get right up to the 65s. a quarter, or whatever it is, it will help him to keep the men on the farms at this stage. Again, a man walked into my place from Cambridgeshire yesterday and said he had been turned out of his farm by the county committee at five days' notice. I told him he had no redress. It was again the story that all Members are telling the Minister. The man was financially embarrassed. The landlord had let him in on a low rent for the first two years, and had then graduated the rent upwards, recognising that the farmer was in this state. There is no scheme in the country whereby that land could be well farmed except by the willingness of this poor chap to try his hand at it. There is no financial background by which his farm could be brought into good condition. The Government schemes will be held up because of that fact. The Minister recognises it by allowing his committees to step in to do the work. He will burden the county committees with the job knowing that many individuals cannot do it, not because they are unskilled or unwilling or do not know that it wants doing, but because they are given no financial facilities to enable them to do it. That is the plea which the House is making.
This is a miserable little Bill. No. 1 has been dealt with in the House and we know that another must come. The feeling in the House is rising that if the Minister wants agriculture to be put in a state even to fulfil his short-term policy—some of us suspect that he has not a long-term policy—they must provide the facilities. When we see him announcing to the country that he is carrying out agricultural measures for food development and almost at the same time the

Minister of Food says we have plenty of food in store, we begin to see that the two Ministers are not getting on too well together and that one is discounting the value of what the other is trying to do. We sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in that position. It is a little anomalous and droll to see Ministers countering one another in this way. We would support the Minister of Agriculture to a greater degree than we do if we felt sure that he was legislating, not for 18 months of war, but for another generation of farming. If he will undertake to introduce a real financial buttress to this industry for all time he will do the greatest thing in his period of office, whether it be long or short, and will meet the feeling which is growing in the House.

6.40 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I am sure that every hon. Member agrees with the remarks of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) because it is clear that people who wondered how farmers carried on and how agriculture existed are appreciating now that under this strain the weaknesses in the industry are becoming plain. There is one thing which the Minister of Agriculture has done which is a tremendous step in the right direction. That is by himself going out into the country and meeting the war agricultural committees. There are some good committees and some bad, and some of them are very bad. The only way of levelling them up to a proper standard is by personal contact with the Minister and his officials. I know that in different parts of the country his visit has been greatly welcomed, and I am sure that he has taken into account a great deal that committees have told him as to local conditions.
In 1906, when I first went into politics, I was a member of a committee which was considering the possibility of setting up an agricultural credit bank. It was the project of Mr. Jesse Collings, a colleague of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. The present Minister of Aircraft Production, then recently arrived from Canada, and Mr., afterwards Sir, Gilbert Parker, then a Member of the House, were also on the committee. There is in the archives of the Ministry an enormous amount of evidence as to the need of having some system of agricultural credit. Every


other agricultural country in Europe which looked to agriculture as one of its main industries has an agricultural credit system. Although I think that the criticism of the banks has been rather overdone, I believe that the policy of the amalgamation of the banks in this country has produced a completely new picture. In Scotland in the old days, when there were a large number of small banks, credit was left largely to the manager and the local board. They knew everybody and if they trusted the individual they advanced money. In those days it was always possible to get assistance for men who really knew their jobs.
Some of us are getting rather nervous about the powers of war agricultural committees, and the fact that there does not seem to be any appeal against them. An hon. Gentleman opposite quoted the case of a hard-working man who had gone into a farm and had been unable to make ends meet. The only thanks he got for his efforts to help agricultural production was to be flung out of his farm. I am not sure what appeal that man has got. There ought to be some kind of appeal if it is proved that he has not failed through stupidity or old age. If his accounts can be audited it ought to be possible to arrange some means whereby the services of a man who knows the land and is skilled are not lost. I doubt whether the agricultural committee could put in somebody else to make any greater success of the farm unless funds were available. I beg the Minister to realise that in some parts of the country agricultural committees are having a difficult task. The work is to a great extent voluntary, and more and more work is being put upon them. It will be an invidious task to peach on your neighbour's land and report that there is a field of thistles that ought to be cut. That is a task that should not be imposed on the local sub-committee of the war agricultural committee, but should be done from some central point.
With regard to drainage, I am a member of the Thames Conservancy Board, which is the largest catchment board in the country. A special drainage committee has been set up and this House has given that board special powers. We have had many meetings, and have asked various county war agricultural committees to submit schemes of work which should be undertaken. I think hon. Members will realise that it is futile to attempt

either tile drainage or mole drainage unless the water courses below are cleared out, as otherwise the water which is being led from the land cannot get away, and catchment boards have been given powers which enable them to do the work and charge it to the owners and occupiers if they have not done it. But in a matter of this kind there must be a co-ordinated plan. Certain counties in the Thames catchment area have produced maps and plans and the work is being done now, but everybody must realise that unless the work is done at once we shall be in great difficulties in the coming winter.
There is another difficult matter which I should like to mention. I know that in view of the military exigencies arising from the danger of invasion a great many things have had to be done which with more mature consideration would not have been done, but what is to be said of cutting a tank ditch through flood banks in order to prevent tanks getting on to certain land when one end of the tank ditch is actually below the level of the main river, so that if there happens to be a slight rise in the river the water will be conducted at right angles to all the flood banks which have been created and thousands and thousands of acres will be flooded? That is what is happening at this moment. What is the position of a catchment board charged by this House with the duty of trying to carry out a drainage scheme when somebody comes along and without a "By your leave" or "With your leave," or without asking the opinion of any of the engineers, cuts through the flood banks?
Furthermore, contractors who were employed by many catchment boards have had all their plant either requisitioned or taken away by the military authorities. That is quite right when we are in danger of invasion, but there is also the danger of a shortage of food, and all I say is that there ought to be some authority which will insist that the skilled engineers charged with the responsible duties of drainage are consulted before some of these works are carried out. I do not think we ought to blame the military authorities altogether, because under the Defence Regulations they can do anything they like, including erecting fortifications on small islands which appear in some of our rivers which, after a few rains, will be at least four or


five feet under water. But that is another story. This Bill is concerned with the drainage of the country, and I appeal to the Minister to set a time limit before which county war agricultural committees must put in their schemes. The Thames Conservancy Board have some of the best engineers in the country, and we can get the labour, but we must have the schemes, and if the right hon. Gentleman would set a time limit that would be very helpful. The Minister says that they are preparing them already. Some counties have done more than that, they have submitted them, and if some counties can do it I do not see why others should not.
Then there is the problem of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to reply, I understand. There are not many Members representing Scottish constituencies who have addressed the House, and although I am no longer a Scottish Member, as I was at one time, I have certain interests in Scotland, and I would ask the Secretary of State to bear certain things in mind. Scottish agriculture, in the Highlands, at any rate, has gone through a very poor time in recent years. The problem of drainage in Scotland is one which has been very much complicated, though it is not often realised, by power schemes of one kind and another. People who study water supply sometimes do not appreciate the effects of the work of man in upsetting the work of Nature. Not only in Scotland, but in parts of the North of England as well we dam up a valley, lead water into that valley from the normal natural watercourses, and then lay great pipes to supply cities with that water. Somehow or other the water has to get to the sea, it has to find its level, and we are pouring thousands of millions of gallons down watercourses which Nature never designed to carry that volume of water. In certain parts of Scotland there are great power schemes which have dammed up various glens, and should there be even accidental bombing by enemy action, or sabotage, we should be faced with a serious situation, and might have a great deal of the land flooded, because I am afraid it is impossible adequately to guard all these vulnerable points.
But in regard to normal drainage Scotland has not the same catchment system as exists in England, and I hope that one result of this Bill will be that more attention will be paid by the Scottish Office to the need for a comprehensive drainage system in Scotland. The situation there is difficult, because lairds are now impoverished. I remember fighting elections in Scotland in which a poster was used which was very popular. It showed a magnificent stag—it was far more than a royal; I think it had 18 or 20 points—prancing about on the top of a mountain with a background of heather and rocks and a burn. That was labelled "Scotland as it is." With it was another picture, showing apparently the same scene—there was the same elevation of a mountain peak—with a field of wheat in which the straw was at least four feet high, and that was labelled "Scotland as it ought to be." That was the sort of stuff that was put out to bemuse and bemuddle the urban population.
But that idea has gone for good. There would be no happy reception from the present Secretary of State for Scotland for any such futile suggestion. On the other hand, fluke has got into a good many of the grazing centres of Scotland, and flock masters are not being paid for the wool clip as promptly as they should be—although all sheep farmers are grateful to the Minister of Agriculture for the fight he has put up about it. I hope it will be remembered that Scottish agriculture in the Highlands and Islands does call for very special consideration. A good deal of that land is now in protected areas, where it is extremely difficult to get transport. The black-faced sheep are suffering as a result of neglect, partly due to the effect of Death Duties and so on, which has prevented proper drainage of the land. It is not possible now to get labour or plant. I believe the Scottish drainage system will require a Bill to itself, and I would ask the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to regard this as a really urgent matter, because in those poorish districts not only the big laird but the small crofter is feeling the difficulties of the times, and although this Bill may help in some ways, something more is wanted, something which will recognise that the needs of to-day call for a complete revision of the system of drainage North of the Tweed.
Finally, I would say a word on the position of the average farmer in Scotland and England. He looks to the Minister of Agriculture to help him to obtain cash at the present time. No need is more clamant than the need to restore confidence to those who are engaged in agriculture. Farmers do not for a moment begrudge the increase of wages, they have wanted them for a long time; but, on the other hand, farmers have to pay, and rightly so, a heavy contribution towards unemployment insurance in agriculture, and now some farmers are saying "They cannot have it both ways. I am going to make use of the unemployment insurance scheme and am going to stand my men down and re-employ them when it is possible." That has brought an unsettling atmosphere into agriculture and the only way to put it right is to forestall the payments that are due. There are a certain number of war agricultural committees which have not yet paid up in respect of the land which has been explored for ploughing-up. And then there is the question of the wool clip. It will be of tremendous advantage to agriculture if, as the Minister has said, the wheat payment is to be made in a block sum.
It would be very helpful if the Minister could see his way to create some joint council or committee of the war agricultural committees in particular areas. There should be groups of war agricultural committees for the Wessex area, for East Anglia and for North-West England, and meetings should be arranged with bankers, merchants and everybody else concerned to see whether they cannot evolve some form of agricultural credit scheme for the district. Unless that is done, and done quickly, many farmers will be out of business, and I am sure there is an enormous quantity of land which the occupiers would be willing to cultivate better if they had the means to do it. It is a question of restoring confidence and providing credit. If the Minister of Agriculture continues as he has begun, stands up to objections from other Departments and recognises that we all look to him to carry through a forceful, offensive agricultural policy, he will find hon. Members in all parts of the House willing to support that policy, willing to carry it on after the war, and willing to make all the men engaged in agriculture feel that they are

not in an industry which urban people look to only in times of stress, but are in an industry which is the lifeblood of the country, an industry which has to be supported because history shows that a country prospers in proportion as it recognises its obligations to the land, from which we have all sprung.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I do not think I should have ventured to rise if it had not been for the eloquent appeal to hon. Members from Scotland which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) has just addressed to the House. I am certain we have all listened with considerable interest to the excellent plea which he made for farming in Scotland. The hon. Member has a lifelong association with the Northern Kingdom, although I had not realised in my ignorance that on one or two occasions before the last war he had actively intervened in the political field in Scotland. Having contested agricultural seats there, no Member is better qualified than he to address to us such remarks as he has made. There are two points in his speech which I should like to touch upon. First, I was wholeheartedly in agreement with him when he stressed the point that the talk about the crippling effect of the banks upon agriculture has been rather overdone. My hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) is looking at me with a not very friendly eye. He has taken a considerable part in bringing that question forward, and we all admire the gallant way in which he puts his point of view, but I am inclined to take the view of the hon. Member for Abingdon that the criticism has been rather overdone, in fact considerably overdone. I can speak at first hand only in regard to agricultural conditions in Scotland, and there I know that if the occupier of land satisfies the banks that he is really in earnest about his job, and has proved his worth in the way he goes about cultivating his acres, he will be quite easily accommodated. I am very glad that my hon. Friend, who knows so much about Scotland and who represents an English agricultural constituency in this House, has seen fit this afternoon to remind us of these things.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that, in Scotland, if a farmer is a success,


the banks will back him, but if he is in difficulty they will not?

Mr. McKie: The hon. Gentleman must not seek to put more into my words than I intended them to convey. I said that if a man had proved his worth, in other words, his skill, and had given considerable evidence of his ability to till the land, the banks, if he were in difficulties, would make very little difficulty about his being accommodated. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon congratulated the Minister, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my offering him my congratulations also, on the excellent way in which he presented this Bill for Second Reading. We have had a very discursive Debate, and I do not want to go into the somewhat wider details that are almost outside the scope of the Bill and into which some hon. Members have gone this afternoon. I want to put one or two further points very briefly, and to ask for information about the actual Clauses, and, first of all, about Clause 4.
This somewhat narrow Clause antedates the directions to plough up land. But even the Minister went into the whole question of ploughing up land, and therefore I hope I shall be in order in speaking on the point. Many hon. Members have alluded to the fact that agriculturists will be required this winter to double the acreage that is now under the plough. In my own county, some 11,000 additional acres are to go under the plough during the coming autumn and winter. A fortnight ago, during the Debate in this House on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, I put one or two points to the Secretary of State who, I understand, is to reply on the Debate to-day. He knows that everyone, in Scotland and throughout the country, has done his very best, and that there have been only a few cases where people have been awkward in regard to ploughing up the extra acerage. In some cases there was considerable inconvenience last winter, and now people are being asked to redouble their efforts this winter. We shall naturally do our very best cheerfully to meet the increased responsibility, but the people who were in difficulties last winter will be placed in a very awkward position indeed.
I suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Minister of Agriculture that they should not go on the lines of demanding a universal quota in certain cases. Some of is, myself included, have been trying to help in this situation. I have a holding which has been under grass for the last 70 years. There are about 200 acres. I asked the agricultural committee to take the whole acreage and put it under the plough, if they so desired, but they thanked me politely for my offer and said that I must bide my time and wait for this year. Other people who are in the same position as myself would gladly do a thing like that, in order to relieve other people. I merely put this out as a suggestion.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) alluded to the position of private gardens. I assume he meant the gardens in the provincial towns and had in mind those gardens, large and small, which, increasingly, are going back, owing to labour difficulties. I ventured to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and to point out to him that the reason why those gardens are going back was largely owing to the inability of the owners of the gardens to pay the rate to which agricultural labourers are entitled. Owners of private gardens would wish to extend that rate of pay to those who work in their gardens, if they were in a position to do so. Landowners are a very small number of the community, and I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland realise that the farmer who is called upon to pay the standard minimum rate of 48s. a week to his men has a guarantee of prices, while the landowners who employ gardeners and estate workers have no such guarantee. These are such a small class in the community that I am certain that no Minister would wish to penalise them.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland replies, perhaps he will be good enough to explain Clause 8, to which the Minister of Agriculture just alluded in his opening speech. I am certain that there is nothing really sinister in the Clause, which makes what is described as further provisions for the requisitioning of land in Scotland. The hon. Member for Abingdon told us about an election poster of long ago: "Scotland as it is, and Scotland as it might be." The date


was just before the great days of the Limehouse speeches of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is now the father of the House. As the hon. Member said, we have long since left far behind that kind of idea, even though it came from the father of the House, whom I was delighted to hear making an eloquent plea the other day on behalf of the landed interests. I hope the Minister will give that explanatory word.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Price: Scottish agriculture has been referred to by the two last speakers. Although mere South Briton I venture to say a word on the subject. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) referred to the serious difficulties from which Highland agriculturists have for so long been suffering. I always try to see the kinds of problem facing that marvellous country. Those who have studied it on its agricultural side have come to the conclusion, I have heard, that the problem of the Highland agriculturist arises from over-grazing with one particular animal, the sheep. After 1745, and the great rebellion of that year, the authorities took large blocks of cattle from the Highlands of Scotland in order to break the military power of the Highlanders. The clansmen had all their cattle taken away. Not since those days has there been any extensive mixed farming in the Highlands. The consequence is that what with the deer forests and the constant, everlasting grazing of sheep, you have bracken extending everywhere over the Highlands. That is true, not only of Scotland, but of the higher parts of this country, too. Sheep are eating out the best of the herbage and leaving the poorest, and loosening the soil, thus making it easier for the roots of the bracken to extend. The answer to the problem of the Highlands is the introduction of mixed farming. I saw an example of mixed farming in a great glen to the North-East of Fort William, which a few years ago had been developed by a member of another place, Lord Abinger, where most successful mixed farming had been practised on land which had once been derelict. Of course, it needs credit. I do not see how that is to be done unless the war agricultural committees in Scotland get together in some way, produce plans and see that they are followed.
I desire to raise one or two points with regard to this Bill. In general it is a useful Bill. It does not go very far, but it fills up important gaps. We see the building of the new agriculture slowly rising, but we do not see any approach to the roof yet. However, that will be approached by the addition of a few more layers of bricks. In regard to the first Clause, it makes it possible for measures to be taken to assist upland field drainage. That is a very important factor. It may be true that it is no good draining your fields unless you have the lower watercourses drained first but the converse is also true. I have seen instances where that has been the case. Although the main watercourses, the main rivers, brooks and streams, have been cleaned out, still on the uplands or the semi-uplands, particularly in the clayey districts, you have fields with patches of bog or semi-bog. There has been no sign of that fact being recognised up to now, and until this Clause is put into operation, we shall never get the crops that we should. This last season I have seen cases of arable fields recently ploughed up which have produced only part crops—a good crop on one part of the field and a poor crop on another part of the field—just because there was no tile drainage or mole drainage or any kind of land drainage on that particular spot. That is where it seems to me that Clause I may be of importance. I hope that steps will be taken to press the war agricultural executive committees to let farmers know that there are these facilities and that farmers will be assisted.
In regard to the Clause concerning the making of payments in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, I am glad that that is to be extended. I do not share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) that the war-time feeding of cattle may tend to increase tuberculosis. On the contrary, I think it may mean that if farmers make use of their opportunities of making sileage and catch crops from arable land they may be able to feed their cattle in a far more healthy way than the everlasting feeding on imported cakes. At the same time, I agree with him that the maintenance of these bovine tuberculosis measures in war-time is as important as in peace-time. I should like to ask a question, if the Secretary of State


for Scotland would take note of it: What is the position in regard to the cleaning up of the herds? I did not hear the whole of the Minister's speech, but I do not believe that he gave any facts about that matter. How many attested herds have we got in the country, and how many in relation to a year ago? Furthermore, could he say in what districts of the country we have the most attested herds? I ask for this reason. There is reason to believe that there are in the country certain districts which are more healthy and where it is easier to get clean herds than in others. I believe that in certain parts of Wales, over large parts of the county of Carmarthenshire, for instance, it is not absolutely clean but very nearly so. I am afraid that in my own county that is by no means the case. It may be due to climatic or other reasons. Has the Minister any information extending over the last year as to the areas where herds have been more particularly cleaned up as a result of this attested scheme?
In regard to the powers of the agricultural executive committees, there are two points about which I hope the Ministry will see that they are informed. I know of several cases last autumn where there was a distinct insufficiency of threshing machines. Farmers were kept waiting for quite a long time before they could get their corn threshed, and the consequence was that in some cases they did not get their land seeded as early as they otherwise would have done, with bad results for the winter corn. I hope the agricultural committees will be made aware of the importance of this matter, and that they will see to it that in those areas there are sufficient threshing machines to meet the increased arable acreage. If private enterprise will not provide them then perhaps they will step into the breach and do it themselves. The same applies to the repair of agricultural implements. Farmers often have difficulties and delays in getting agricultural implements repaired. I have reason to fear that men are being taken into the Army from some of the agricultural implement depots where repairs are carried out. If this is so this matter should be looked into with the military authority to make sure that we have the necessary skilled men. This is, after all, a most important war industry. If a farmer has his implements

held up, if he wants repairs done and cannot get them done at the right time, there may be a serious loss in the return from that particular field. So often time is the essence of a good crop, and unless you get your seed bed made properly at the right time you will get deluges of rain or frost, or something will intervene, and you will not get the crop.
With regard to further powers of the war agricultural executive committees, a lot has been said about the importance of credits. Perhaps it is true that for many farmers the present rate of interest is not serious. For others, I think it is. The mere fact that in the last Bill dealing with agriculture the Minister inserted a Clause which gives the war committees power to extend credits for certain special purposes is an indication that all is not well. I am satisfied that for a great many of those who will be called upon to carry out important works in the near future, with additional expense for ploughing up land and obtaining implements, additional credit will be required, which they may find it hard to get. Therefore, I join with those who have stressed the importance of this matter. I would like to get an answer to a question which I put the other day when the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) raised this subject on the Adjournment. I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many applications have been made for credits under the Agriculture Act. Since the Bill has become an Act have there been any applications under the Section? The Financial Secretary said that it was a matter for the Minister of Agriculture. Now, I should like the Minister to answer the question.
There is another point in regard to wool. Assistance could very well be given to the small farmer who wants a little ready money. These farmers have their wool clip for the last summer, but in most cases they have not been able to get a penny for it. Everything has been held up by the Wool Control, which has not in many cases been very active. I know cases where farmers would have been able to get rid of most of their wool in ordinary times, but now the greater part has been stored. Steps should be taken to enable farmers to get an advance in cash on their wool clip. That would very much assist the small man, who will be called upon this autumn to under-


take increased expenditure. Here he has something of value, which previously he has been able always to market, but which is now held up owing to war conditions. These are a few points on which I should like information; otherwise, I think the Bill is very useful.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: I usually speak for only five minutes, and I always have to wait my turn in order to do so. To-day I have been fortunate: I have been waiting only three and a half hours; and, therefore, I shall confine my speech to three and a half minutes. I, personally, cannot praise this Bill. Bill the first was vilely reckoned; equally vile was Bill the second; and what mortal ever heard any good of Bill the third? The reason I say this—and I am confining myself to Bill No. 2—is because none of these Bills dealt with the root cause of all our troubles in agriculture. That root cause is lack of money. It is no good the Minister of Agriculture, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, denying this. It is quite clear, from every quarter of the country, that the root cause of our trouble is lack of money, lack of credit facilities, and, where credit facilities are available, the high cost in interest to the borrower.
I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) touched on this matter. He speaks with some authority, being himself a banker; and I think I am right in saying that he suggested that what is required is an agricultural credits Bill to deal with all these matters. I welcomed that suggestion very much. It showed the real dawn of sanity, coming from someone who has authority to speak. I hope that the Minister will look into that at the earliest opportunity. I very much enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell). He touched on many of these subjects, and lent considerable weight to all that has been said on them. I think my hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) did the same. The additional charge which the agricultural labourers' wages has made on the farmer was a very necessary one. I welcomed that increase for the agricultural labourer most whole-heartedly. I did not hesitate to vote against the Government upstairs in order that the agricultural labourer might have the increased wage. We defeated the

Government on that; and, therefore, I am not complaining that the Government has done something, which is much overdue, for the agricultural labourer. But something should be done to enable the farmer to pay that increased wage. It is no good the Minister telling us—I think there is some allusion to it in this Bill—that there are maximum prices. Maximum prices are not the same thing as fixed or guaranteed prices. The maximum price is often not obtained. The reason why farm workers—I prefer that term to "agricultural labourers"—are being discharged to-day is simply the inability of the farmer to pay the higher rate of wages. That rate is not too high, but it is too high for the farmer to pay on the prices he believes he will get. He does not believe that he will get the maximum prices. That is something which will have to be altered at the earliest opportunity.
My hon. Friend opposite said that I was sometimes somewhat critical of the banks. I do not think, with great deference to him, that that is quite true. Many of the bankers of this country are lifelong friends of mine. I have nothing but the highest admiration for them. I have no quarrel with the banks, in their ordinary sphere, but I do not think that they have realised in the last few years the necessity for something being done for agriculture. I think that, in spite of assurances to the contrary, over a period of many years, with the Bank Rate at 2 per cent., overdraft charges at 5 per cent., and the amount outstanding at £53,000,000, the banks have done extremely well out of the money they have lent to the agriculturists of this country. There is proof positive in the fact that the bank balance sheets show each year that, after making allowances for bad and doubtful debts, they have earned some thousands of pounds. I am going to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in replying, he will not really, in a spirit of great friendliness and reasonableness, give us some assurance that these credits shall be tackled. Perhaps I am too impulsive at times, but I feel it from the heart. Therefore, I am going to sit down, after making this appeal: that this great industry, which can do more than all else for the national effort, shall have that to which it is rightly entitled, so that we shall be saved from starvation and any other perils which beset us during the war.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am not, unfortunately, a rural dweller but an urban dweller, and therefore I must be excused from passing eulogies upon the Minister of Agriculture. It would appear that, generally speaking, this Bill marks an advance, but it does not go far enough. There is a part of the Bill—Clause 3—in which the urban dwellers of the country are particularly interested. The new cheap milk scheme will cause a greatly increased consumption of milk in the country, and it is therefore of vital importance to the State that the quality of the milk produced should be of an unassailable character. No one disputes that tuberculosis in cattle is the cause of tuberculosis in human beings, and all sections of the community are affected by this and other diseases due to tuberculous cattle and their products. One has merely to look at the annual report of the Ministry of Health to realise how serious is the problem of tuberculosis. I have, I think, mentioned previously in this House that every year there are no fewer than 60,000 fresh cases of tuberculosis in human beings.
Milk is not perhaps the prime factor in tuberculosis, but it certainly plays a part, and perhaps a leading part, in connection with it. Everyone will agree that the prevalence of this and kindred diseases is of vast cost to the State, and therefore all sections of the community are interested, and particularly the local authorities, which expend vast sums annually in combating what has been described as one of the great killing diseases. The State makes contributions to the local authorities, and private individuals suffer loss and disabilities from this disease, and if any steps can be taken to increase the protection of the community against the disease, they certainly ought to be taken. It is an interesting fact that, in spite of what is suggested in Clause 3, the continuing of an expenditure of some £773,000 per annum upon improving the quality of the herds in the matter of bovine tuberculosis which in the 7½ years will reach some £5,750,000, the Milk Marketing Board advise us that they are putting upon the market all this non-designated milk which any medical officer of health in the country will tell us is in the main tainted by excremental pollution on the one hand, and by various disease

germs on the other, and that it is a definite source of injury to the community and ought to be dealt with. The Ministry of Health, which has been approached by medical officers of health, has expressed the fear that in the war period this difficulty cannot be dealt with, and when it was raised recently in a Question, it was stated that the Ministry of Food had the matter under consideration but that it was not very hopeful of dealing with it. Some 50 per cent. of the non-designated milk is dealt with by the large distributing agencies and is pasteurised, and it is therefore safe, or relatively safe, though much depends upon the bottling process, but that still leaves at least 25 per cent. of the milk consumed in this country which, under a proper and commonsense state of society, would not be permitted to be marketed in any way in its raw state.
I do not know of any section of the community which is similarly privileged as is undoubtedly this side of agriculture. It is permitted by the State and the various Ministries concerned, and in contradiction to the general interests of the community, to place an unwholesome and a dangerous food upon the market for human consumption. What other industry, trade or business is permitted to do that? No other section of agriculture could do so. Prosecutions would immediately ensue, but not in the case of milk which is impure. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) made reference to Clause 3 of the Bill, and I am glad that they did so, as they are practical farmers. They have asked what progress has been made in this matter, because they realise the seriousness of the situation. I should like to know, if the Minister can tell us, the position with regard to the attested herds of the country? Is he pursuing a course which is really fruitful in the matter, or is there a continuation of the amount of tuberculosis in cattle that we have seen for years past?
Medical science tells us that tuberculosis is a disease attributable to three main causes—bad housing, a low standard of living, and improper food, in which one must include milk. We have almost solved our housing problem, and we are grateful to the


Government for what has been done, and the standard of life has been raised in this country during the last few years, but still there remains this terrible drain upon the country from this source of tuberculosis. One hesitates to say that the large sum of money which has been expended, and which it is proposed to expend—£5,750,000 in the course of the next 7½ years—is wasted money, and it is also significant to remember, too, that over £2,000,000 sterling was expended in 1939, and a similar sum will be expended this year, in producing a better quality of milk for the consumers of the country, and yet we have an almost stationary position with regard to tuberculosis in this country.
What is the prime cause from which we are suffering? I do not believe it is through the great herds of this country; certainly it cannot be through the attested herds, but I believe it is through the hundreds of small farmers—many with only 15 to 20 cows—who are suffering from poverty and have not sufficient resources to obtain the necessary credit. They cannot avail themselves of the monetary efforts made by the Government to set up a higher standard of herd. These are the sources from which the Milk Marketing Board continues to supply this highly dangerous food to the community.
What must be done in the matter? I think it would pay the community many hundreds per cent. to take steps to eradicate these small, inefficient herds and farms. If that could be done, there would be a superior quality of milk produced. I see no reason why the agricultural industry should have greater protection than the engineering industry, with which I am associated, or with any other industry concerned with the welfare of the community. But, under the law, the agricultural industry is permitted to put on to the market, day by day, this improper food, and the powers of medical officers of health are quite insufficient to deal with the problem. If this suggestion that I have made cannot be carried out, then I think it is clearly the duty of the Ministry and other responsible parties to make sure that the products of these farms should be intercepted and treated before they are consumed. That is a just proposition. I speak on behalf of the leading municipalities in the north of England, to whom this problem is

becoming increasingly acute from every point of view. This milk ought to be pasteurised; if it cannot, then it certainly should be manufactured into dried milk. The process of such manufacture frees it from all deleterious matter and dangerous germs. It would be in the interests of the country if really serious efforts were directed to increasing the welfare of the general body of citizens. It is not unreasonable to suggest that we in Britain should follow the example of the United States, which gives a pure pasteurised milk supply to all its citizens throughout the different States of that great country. We know that in certain Continental countries, particularly Denmark and Norway, a similar state of affairs prevails, yet we in the heart of the Empire have not taken the steps which ought to be taken forthwith in this direction. Let it be said by the Minister that this is of as great concern to him, the Ministry and the Government as any other affecting the welfare and safety of the population. If that be so, then this Bill will be beneficial to the whole community.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I intervene only because of some of the remarks made with regard to Scottish agriculture and because I want to urge the Minister to deal, in his reply, with some of the points specifically raised by Members of this House. With all due respect to my hon. Friend who has just spoken, agriculturists, particularly in the war effort, have every right to make definite claims on the Government, first of all in view of the great national necessity for agriculture at the moment and, secondly, because neither the engineering industry, nor any other industry that I can think of, has to meet the bad weather, bad luck and many other misfortunes that fall on agriculture. Therefore, I think every effort that is seriously made to enable Ministers to understand the problems of the various interests and localities connected with agriculture ought to be made as often as possible in this House.
With regard to Scottish agriculture, while I represent an industrial constituency, my close association with the London self-government movement, the Highland crofters' movement and organisations of that kind have given me an insight into, and knowledge of, some of


our agricultural problems in the North. The chief fault with regard to Scottish agriculture in the past has been the lack of encouragement in the Highlands by Government after Government. Successively, they have failed to recognise the very great difficulties in the North as regards the rigours of the climate and the encroachment of bracken. There has been very little Government effort since, I think, the last Commission, away back in the '80's. We cannot say to-day that the fault with Scottish agriculture is because of too much grazing, or this or that; the fault has been because the industry has been seriously neglected, despite the complaints of the farmers. I do not say that in a severely critical spirit, but we must recognise that fact, deal now with the problem as it faces us, and see whether this Bill will provide steps to make up some of the leeway.
I want to deal with the powers of our war agricultural committees in Scotland. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have criticised rather severely the composition of one particular committee. If we are to allow in these committees representation of separate interests, then I think the whole purpose of these committees fails. We shall not have broad, courageous schemes brought forward because of this clashing within the committees themselves. The composition of these committees could very fairly be examined closely by the Secretary of State, and he will find that interests are represented which ought not to be represented. He knows that there is hardly a single independent farmer in the Isle of Bute. The Marquess of Bute controls the very life of those farmers. They dare not even place certain pictures on the wall. He rules their lives. He has his representative on the war agricultural committee, and there is not a single ordinary farmer who will raise his voice if it is against the interests of the Marquess of Bute. The Minister knows it.
The Duke of Sutherland is represented on the Sutherland War Agricultural Committee by the man who is his factor and agent. Can anyone visualise the servant of the Duke of Sutherland saying that the Duke is failing in his duty? He is represented three times. He is represented by the factor and agent, by the factor and agent's son, and by another member.
The committee is supposed to be composed of men who only have the interests of the country at heart, whose only desire is to bring more land into agricultural production and to promote schemes which will give the land the drainage it requires. The composition of the committees must be one of the Minister's first considerations, and he must see to it that they are composed not only of the big farmers or the big farmers' agents, or the landed proprietors' agents, but of practical working farmers and crofters whose only aim is to encourage agriculture and make a moderately paying proposition out of their piece of land and to try and give the country the food that is desired.
I should like now to deal with the powers of the Minister himself. If a farmer fails in his duty, and his drainage facilities are a hindrance not only to his own production but to the neighbouring farms, he can be dealt with by the Secretary of State. The war agricultural committees must first make a recommendation. The Scottish Secretary can then tell this individual that he must make the necessary repairs. But the individual can appeal to the Scottish Secretary, who then again goes over the case and, if he turns down the appeal, the individual who has been reported can say, "If you are going to make me do this work, if you are going to say that I am a danger to neighbouring farmers, I want compensation," and the whole case can be reconsidered. The Scottish Secretary makes a decision with regard to compensation, and, if the individual is not satisfied, he can go to the Land Court and fight the case there. The whole position is ridiculous. If we set up agricultural committees and they make recommendations, the Government representative ought to have the power to deal with that man as we would deal with one who was engaging in sabotage in factories or workshops. As long as you give all these powers of appealing and re-appealing, so long will you have delay.
I have put questions and failed to receive satisfactory replies, even to get any information at all with regard to the number of recommendations that have been made. I believe the acreage of land under production has increased and, after the scheme has been in operation for so long, I should like the Scottish Secretary to tell us how successful it has been, how


many drainage recommendations have been made by the war agricultural committees and in how many cases this repair work has been carried out without compensation. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that all representations by small farmers and crofters who can show that their desire is merely to enlarge production in an agricultural sense are very carefully examined, because for far too long in the past they have been neglected, and bad feeling and hatred have been aroused in communities in the North of Scotland which were certainly bad for any agricultural production policy. I trust that the Minister will recognise that my intervention has been made merely for the purpose of placing before him the point of view of many farmers and crofters whose life has been spent on the land in order to draw from it, not great profit but a livelihood, and to provide the necessities of life for the general community. In peace-time many of these appeals and arguments would not apply very definitely, but in war-time every acre of land must be used and every opportunity must be given to the crofters and farmers, and the landed proprietors and those who desire to stop the progress of agriculture because of their own selfish interests must be dealt with as severely as anyone who is engaging in sabotage.

8.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ernest Brown): This Debate has followed the usual course of Second Reading Debates on Bills which the House as a whole is glad to see. On such occasions, three things happen which are very valuable from the point of view of the House, the country, and the Ministers concerned. First of all, a slight tribute is paid to the merits of the Bill and it is said that it is a small but useful Bill, although occasionally an impetuous Member calls it a sham. Secondly, there are demands for a bigger and more comprehensive Measure, and occasionally a Member states precisely what he means by that, but generally does not do so. Thirdly—and perhaps this is the most valuable of the three things—hon. Members raise wider issues, in so far as Mr. Speaker allows them to do so, and state what they would desire to see in the Bill, or what they think would have been in it if they had been the Minister producing

it. In this Debate there has been no departure from that general rule. With regard to the Bill itself, all that is claimed for it by the Minister of Agriculture and myself—for we are both concerned, although not quite equally, for I am more concerned with some parts, and he with others—is that it is a useful Measure in the light of the experience which we have gained since the last Measure was passed. It has been quickly brought in to fill some gaps which we have discovered, in our desire to see the maximum production from the soil of this country at this time of strife and tumult.
I should like now to answer some of the questions that have been put to me, and one or two precise points that have been raised about the Bill. I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) talking about the villages in the West Country which he and I know so well. I remember meetings in those villages more than 30 years ago, when he took the chair and I spoke. At those meetings the practical farmer was more in evidence than the politician, and that was true again to-day when the hon. Member spoke. He summed up the Bill very well when he said that it was in the right direction. I need not say anything more about the Bill as a whole, except to note that the House is pleased with it. To deal now with some of the points that have been raised, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor said that we ought to give greater power to the Agricultural Committees to take over gardens and to see that they are properly cultivated. I am not sure that would be a wise policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture informs me that what is happening in England and Wales is that the local authorities are encouraging the formation of horticultural committees to stimulate a movement towards the end which the hon. Member desires. In Scotland, we have a Gardens and Allotments Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Greig and that committee is actively engaged in this work. I am not sure that persuasion will not be much more successful than the rather arbitrary measure which the hon. Member suggested.

Mr. Jackson: What about dealing with the gardens of soldiers in the Army?

Mr. Brown: In England and Wales they are trying to get this done through the local authorities, and in Scotland we are doing it through the Gardens and Allotments Committee, and local authorities and other bodies. The hon. Member then spoke about wasteland and commons, and I do not think he was quite up to date in his reference to the powers which we have. I am assured that in England and Wales the committees have adequate powers to deal with problems of wasteland and commons. Action has been taken, is being taken, and will be taken. Another point made by the hon. Member, and echoed in the striking speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), concerned a problem which is a very difficult one for the Ministers in both countries, and for some individual farmers. I was glad to hear hon. Members recognise that military necessities are overriding, as all of us agree, but the difficulty arises when a local commander is presented with an urgent order, and is unable to have the necessary consultation and co-operation that ought to take place in order that great harm shall not be done. I can assure hon. Members that we have been very active in this matter. A great deal of administrative action has been taken already, and I am sure it is the wish of all concerned, the Service authorities equally with us, to ensure that in future there shall be the maximum co-operation to make certain, first, that what is wanted for the defence of the country shall be done, and done urgently; and secondly, that it shall be done in the light of the best local advice that can be given to ensure that there shall be the smallest amount of damage to agricultural interests and food production. I will not deal with the problems that have been raised about oats, because I think they are hardly in order on this Bill, as Mr. Deputy-Speaker hinted just now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Campridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked a question about the making of roads in the Fenlands. In the particular cases in which he is interested, the roads are being constructed of reinforced concrete, and I can assure him that urgent representations have been made to the Ministry of Supply with a view to ensuring that sufficient cement is available to enable the work to proceed on normal lines. The most urgent representations have been

made, but my hon. Friend will understand that there are priorities in this matter. Furthermore, while the Ministry of Agriculture are in consultation with the Ministry of Transport as regards the possibility of using alternative materials for the construction of roads in the Fen areas, it is regarded as absolutely essential that such roads, however constructed, must be of a permanent nature, due regard being had to the character of the soil on which they are constructed. I believe that in Norfolk they are of opinion, and that their experience shows, that a road constructed with a chalk foundation, with gravel and a waterproof covering, will be perfectly satisfactory, provided that the waterproof covering is maintained in a proper manner. We are not in all cases confined merely to the use of this very important material, cement.
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) spoke of the Bill as filling gaps, and was glad that, as I pointed out in an interruption in the course of the Debate, tile drainage, as well as mole drainage, is provided for under the Bill. The hon. Member asked whether the Internal Drainage Boards are the right organisation. He will understand that the local authorities in this case have no power to levy a special rate. The boards have that power. On the other hand, he must understand that what we are dealing with now are not roads under the charge of the local authority; they have not been made up, and have not been taken over. Therefore, the local authorities clearly could not be the originators of a scheme of this kind without a very long delay, and, of course, a complete recasting of the whole of our system in this respect. Other hon. Members have asked why the highway authorities should not take over responsibility for a Fen road which is not a highway. That is another and smaller side of the same problem.

Mr. Quibell: Will these roads be taken over when they are completed?

Mr. Brown: I am pointing out that we do not think that is the way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Quibell: There are others who differ.

Mr. Brown: That may be so. One of the purposes of the House is the expression of differences of opinion. I am explaining that the Ministry of Agriculture in this matter have chosen the appropriate and practical way of getting done a thing which everybody agrees ought to be done. I hope the hon. Member will welcome the step and that he will not try to cast doubts on the practicability of it, because it does not happen to be the kind of scheme which will appeal to him.

Mr. Quibell: I merely wish to ask whether or not the drainage authority is a more appropriate authority than a local authority.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will understand that this scheme is carried out in connection with the drainage scheme. It is in pursuance of that purpose that we think this machinery is the appropriate machinery. For the moment I will not go into the questions raised in regard to credit by the hon. Member for North Cumberland and other hon. Members, because I hope to say a few words on that before I sit down. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) can be assured with regard to tractors that the points he has mentioned are in hand, and that we have not merely a great many more threshing machines for the forthcoming operations, but also that we have organised them on a regional basis. I will not pursue the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) and discuss what has taken place on more than one Minister's Vote on the question of Army releases. The House is well aware of the difficulties, and is well aware of the contradiction of interests between the need for Territorials in pre-war days, and the needs of agriculture, and how it was resolved. I have more than once pointed out that it was done on a balance of view. We all have to face the facts. The original procedure was adopted when the Territorials were not at full strength; then came the doubling of the Territorials; but since then two steps have been taken; firstly, we have lowered the age of reservation, and, secondly, the Army has done a great deal to grant suspensions for a considerable period on the one hand, and temporary suspension on the other. I do not think I need say any more about that.

Mr. Quibell: That does not answer the point that I made. I stated that in the last fortnight a key-man was taken from one farm of 60 acres. He was a key-man because he was the only man on the farm, and it was left to his widowed mother.

Mr. Brown: I did not reply to that, because I thought the Minister would look into it. However, the age of 18 is the reservation age, though it has been 21 for a long time. Therefore, I would prefer not to reply until the hon. Member produces the exact case to the Minister, who then, of course, can consider it.

Mr. Quibell: I have done it already.

Mr. Brown: Then there is no need to discuss it further on the Second Reading of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) again raised the question of the small farmers in Suffolk, and the effect of military operations on their work. He again pleaded for some simple machinery in regard to money, whereas the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) raised the question of a long-term improvement and a short-term improvement. He will understand that not only in this Bill do we have to relate one to the other, but in a whole host of problems and many fields of Ministerial activities. He was a little ungenerous, and on reflection, I think, he will realise it, when he put the question of how serious the Minister is. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend in the short time he has been Minister of Agriculture has shown great proof of seriousness and drive. On reflection the hon. Member for Doncaster will, I think, agree that that is so, and he will realise that not only is the Minister serious, but also the war agricultural committees. Despite the reflection on the part of some hon. Members about that, I am sure that those who work closest with the committees and observe the unremitting labour they put in, will join with me in paying them the warmest tribute for an extraordinary fine piece of national service. One or two Members have said truly that they have some invidious tasks to perform. But there is another side. Those of us who know the countryside know that there is a strong feeling locally in regard to bad cultivators— a stronger feeling than anywhere else. It seems to


me to be the right body to have—a local body knowing the facts and feeling most strongly about it—because they themselves are very often affected in their neighbouring farms by exceedingly bad cultivation. In any case these committees are doing their duties and are carrying them out well.
I was asked for the facts in regard to herds. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) pays a good deal of attention to this subject, and urges it constantly in this House. In March, 1939, there were 5,970, and in March, 1940, 15,530. Between March, 1940, and 30th June, 1940, the number had risen to 16,180. But we do not expect the rise to continue, as the Memorandum on the Bill points out, because when the war began we had to stop applications. The later rise is due to the fact that we did not bar the applications which had already been received. The largest numbers of attested herds are in South Wales and Ayrshire. It is curious that it should be Wales and Scotland and not, in this case, England. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon raised the question of the need for a comprehensive drainage scheme in the Highlands of Scotland. I have not yet had much about this question put before me, but I do know about the development of power schemes from previous Ministerial experience. As he knows, however, our drainage problems in Scotland have never been quite the same as those in England, because we have not the same number of long sluggish rivers finding their way slowly to the sea through flat land. In Scotland they are swifter and shorter, and there are quick running streams. That is why we have been ahead of England in regard to the smaller drainage, and because we have, since 1912, had the power to operate not only mole drainage hut tile drainage as well. I am not aware of the need for a comprehensive scheme, but next Wednesday I hope to go to Inverness and to visit other places and meet agricultural committees as well as representatives of the local authorities. I hope to be there for four or five days, and I will take up the point and find out whether local opinion agrees with the hon. Member's views. As regards other points raised on this matter I have here figures about the extent of drainage in Scotland, but as I hope to go to Scotland to-night, if I can finish this speech in time to catch

my train, I shall not go into these details if the House will forgive me.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), I can assure him there is no sinister motive underlying Clause 8. It is an answer in part to my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), who has not really appreciated it. I invite him to look at the Clause, and I am sure he will give the Minister marks for having done what he urged on a previous occasion. I can sum up the rest of the Debate by saying that it has turned on the plea that a great deal more agricultural credit is wanted. I will not discuss it at length now. I will just say a word in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), who began his speech with a little doggerel. May I reply by reciting some doggerel which I wrote when he was speaking:
My hon. Friend, he Member for Evesham
Thinks every successive Bill a sham,
But pegs away for easy money
And says the land will then be sunny.

Mr. J. Morgan: That is doggerel, indeed.

Mr. Brown: I claim no merit for it, and if Members compare the doggerel of my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham with my effort, they can form their own conclusions.
I was glad to find that there was more than one opinion on the question of credit in the House to-day. On previous occasions the opinion has gone nearly all one way, but to-day I detected a note of doubt in the speeches of one or two Members as to whether it was as important as other people thought. Speaking as the Minister who represents agriculture in Scotland, I understand that the situation is much easier there than it is in England and Wales. I think the problem can be resolved into a question of psychology and of practical fact. People argue about the rate of interest being 5, 4, 3 or 2½ per cent., but there is really not much difference in terms of money on individual loans. It is no good quoting £53,000,000 as the amount of credit outstanding, because it is not one man who has borrowed that amount. It is hundreds of thousands of men. The psychology of it evidently affects Members as they go to their constituencies. I say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister


of Agriculture, who is very active visiting committees, that at the moment he is not convinced that he wants more power. He has made it plain in the last two months that if he were convinced that more powers were wanted—

Mr. J. Morgan: What for? For raising more money?

Mr. Brown: For anything. If he were convinced, he would consider what powers were wanted, argue the matter, and get consent for the necessary legislation. Individual cases were given, but on the whole the facts do not quite bear out the general story. A question was put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), who asked for figures of grants made. They have been given to the House by way of question and answer, and I will see that he gets them. He will not find them encouraging from the point of view of making a story that there is a very widespread demand for more power. The same is true of the Agricultural Corporation. We shall take account of all that has been said about this matter, and I have no doubt that if there is a real case, it can be demonstrated by fact and supported by argument, and at the end the day will be won, as it generally is in this House. I commend this modest, useful and valuable Bill to the House.

Mr. J. Morgan: I take it that that section of the survey which is now being made, in which men are asked whether land is in the condition it is because of financial difficulties, will be seriously looked at?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean raised that point, and the hon. Member had better look at the figures.

Sir R. Glyn: I take it that my right hon. Friend does not want it to go forth that he and the Minister of Agriculture do not think the question of credit is important, because the attitude of the House in all parts to-day is that the provision of credit is of vital importance.

Mr. Brown: I have made that plain by the form of my reply. The point I was making is that my right hon. Friend, in his visits to county committees, has not been made aware of the urge for new powers which has been represented in the

House. Both of us, however, take serious note of all the views that have been expressed by hon. Members, especially as they have been expressed in every part of the House.

Mr. David Adams: Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say with regard to small farms as the prime source of tuberculosis?
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tuesday next.—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) (No. 2) [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make certain amendments in the law relating to agriculture and agricultural land in connection with the present war, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in the sums payable by virtue of Section fifteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, by reason of the extension of that Section to the drainage of agricultural land by all methods of field drainage and to the cleansing or other improvement of ditches on any such land;
(b) any increase in the amount payable out of moneys so provided by reason of the extension, until the thirtieth day of September. nineteen hundred and forty-eight of—

(i) the period during which, under Subsection (1) of Section twenty of the Agriculture Act, 1937, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may pay to the owner of any herd of cattle in Great Britain such sums as the said Minister thinks fit to expend for the purpose of securing so far as practicable that the herd will be free from tuberculosis; and
(ii) the period during which, under Section twenty-one of that Act, the said Minister, may expend sums with the object of eradicating bovine tuberculosis;

(c) any such increase in the expense incurred by the Secretary of State—

(i) under Section twenty-nine of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, in so far as not recovered thereunder, and
(ii) in making grants under that Section in respect of expense incurred by or recoverable from owners of land,



as is attributable to the extension of that Section to the construction and repair of sluices and flapvalves, the restoration of banks and embankments, the erection of embankments and the widening and deepening of the channels of watercourses; and
(d) any such increase in the sums payable by way of compensation under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, by virtue of Section twenty-three of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, as is attributable to the extension of that Section to land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport or recreation where such land is taken possession of by the Secretary of State and certified by him as being uncultivated or not cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. R. S. Hudson.]

Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1939.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft of the Chartered and Other Bodies (Traffic Commissioners) Order, 1940, proposed to be made by the Minister of Transport under Section two of the Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 16th July, be approved."—[Mr. Montague.]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I have one or two questions to ask concerning this Order which, I understand, must be either accepted or rejected as a whole and cannot be amended. I understand that under the major Act there is a provision that there should be 12 chairmen in the various areas defined by the Traffic Commissioners and two other commissioners who are unpaid and who are selected from nominees of 1,300 local authorities. Does the change proposed by the Order mean that it is intended to sack about 1,300, or 2,600 persons, or to sack about 24? In any case, the Order does not seem to make very much difference as regards the dictatorial power which is being sought for those who are left. I understand that as regards the people nominated for these unpaid positions, the local authorities nominate them but have no power of selection, that they were entirely under the dictation of the chairman himself, and that what is now proposed is to do openly what has been happening in actual practice, namely, that although persons have been

nominated they never had any powers, or have never been called upon to operate them, but have simply been selected by the chairman. Now the elected or free representatives will no longer be on the Traffic Commission, which will be wholly in the hands of a paid official. I want to be certain whether that is the position to which we are asked to agree.

8.33 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): I think the best thing I can do in answering the points which have been raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) is to outline the purposes of this proposed Order. Under the Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, His Majesty is by Order-in-Council enabled to reduce the number of persons required to perform any of the functions of a corporation or of a body specified in the Schedule to that Act, and it is also possible by Order to add to the names in the Schedule that of any other corporation or body if a Resolution shall have been passed by both Houses of Parliament approving a draft Order to that effect. This draft Order proposes to schedule the Traffic Commissioners in addition to those bodies already scheduled in the Act of 1939. The Road Traffic Act, 1930, constituted 12 traffic areas with bodies of Traffic Commissioners each consisting of a paid chairman appointed by the Minister and two unpaid commissioners appointed by the Minister from panels of persons nominated by some 1,300 local authorities. Every one of those authorities is required by the Act to make a nomination each year. The most important function of the commissioners in peace-time is to determine applications for road service licences, but the Defence Regulations provide a modified procedure under which the Minister's representative, who is in practice the Chairman of Traffic Commissioners, may grant a road service permit. That rules out the ordinary procedure, questions of appeal machinery, authorisation, and a number of other provisions, with the result that since the outbreak of the war there has been no occasion to call upon the services of the unpaid Traffic Commissioners. The formal procedure of consulting the 1,300 local authorities and selecting additional commissioners from among their nominees cannot be justified in war-time, we hold.
As a matter of fact, this Order, if it is passed, practically regulates what is happening in practice to-day. The Local Authorities' Associations have been consulted and are in complete agreement, and there has been no objection from any local authority.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft of the Chartered and Other Bodies (Traffic Commissioners) Order, 1940, proposed to be made by the Minister of Transport under Section two of the Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 16th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — DETENTION OF A MEMBER.

Ordered,
That the Committee of Privileges do consider and report whether the detention of Captain Ramsay under Regulation 18B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, constitutes a breach of the Privileges of this House."—[Mr. Attlee.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — WAR-TIME SOCIAL SURVEY.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Munro.]

8.37 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I make no apology for raising this matter to-day. Obviously the answer of the Minister of Information to a Question which I put in the House yesterday could hardly be left where it was. The matter does touch the liberties and the susceptibilities of ordinary people in this country, and, rightly or wrongly, whatever view may be held, there is evidence of a growing dislike of the activities of the investigators who have been going round on behalf of the Ministry of Information. I am only trying to the best of my ability to put the point of view of the ordinary individual, and I should like to say to the Minister of Information that there is no question with me of any personal attack upon him. I pay my tribute to the unfailing courtesy which he has always shown to Members who go to him on any matter. I have experienced at

his hands much help and much kindness when he has held other offices. I want to strengthen his hands in order that he may make alterations at the Ministry which is under his control in the way the Department is run and in what it is doing. This canvass from house to house is, in my opinion, as unpopular and unnecessary as it is expensive. It is quite definitely an invasion of the privacy of the ordinary individual at a time when he is much harassed by many matters and when, owing to the necessities of the present time, privacy has become increasingly difficult for the ordinary individual to secure. I cannot think that now is a proper time, whatever their scientific value may be to institute these investigations, when the ordinary housewife and householder, if living at home, are much exercised in their minds on many matters.
Whether this is a good scientific investigation or not is surely a matter of opinion, but collectors of statistics, some medical men and every sort of crank, never cease trying to harry and use as specimens members of the community, in the interests of what the investigators are pleased to call science. I suggest that, so far as one can, the time has come to leave in peace the ordinary law-abiding citizen of this country. Leave these people reasonable freedom, and do not treat them as a sort of scientific cannon fodder on which scientific investigators, whether unleashed by the Ministry or by any other organisation, may work their wicked will. Today we are confronted, quite properly, by a mass of Defence of the Realm Regulations, and we have heard a good deal about them in this House. Obviously, it is very difficult for the householder who goes to the door to know whether these investigators are officially entitled, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, to be there, or are merely people who come down with no real authority for demanding information, and are in a position only of asking for information. It is very difficult for any ordinary person to know whether to slam the door in an official's face or not. Many people would be afraid of taking action which in peace time would be quite proper.
It seems to me that the proper function of the Ministry of Information is to provide information. Heaven knows we get


enough complaints at the present time that they do not provide enough of it. Their proper function is also to counter the false information which may be disseminated, either over the German wireless or by any other means. It very often seems to me that there are great gaps in the Ministry's activities, and that we do not get contradiction of statements made over the wireless and of false and harmful information. It does not seem to be any part of the duty, which this House set the Ministry up to do, to go snooping and spying round the homes of ordinary citizens, who are already sufficiently harassed and perturbed. These people are exceedingly courageous, and are not in need of being told by the B.B.C. to be courageous and to stand up to the situation. Whatever may be wrong with the Ministry of Information, this country has not got the jitters, and is perfectly happy. There is a sort of feeling among investigators that you have to stir people up. Leave the people alone. They are not apathetic. They are worried, as everybody must be worried by reason of the war, but they are not jittery or worried in a way which makes it necessary for people to be going round to find out exactly what they are thinking. These investigations seem to me to be stupid and unnecessary.
There is something much more important than that. The Ministry of Information is a Ministry to provide information. It is no part of its duty that it should become a propaganda organisation. Propaganda must of necessity be tainted and tinged by the personal views of the investigators who go round under the ægis of the right hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that these people must, therefore, in asking their questions, put over some form of propaganda. One cannot imagine that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), if she had been told to go round and find out the reaction of the ordinary individual of this country to beer, would be able to ask her questions on the subject of beer without conveying her own view of beer being bad for people.

Mr. Stokes: And having the door slammed.

Sir A. Southby: Therefore, these people must be putting over a certain amount of

propaganda. I do not suppose there are many Members in this House who are not quite adequate to reporting the feeling in their constituencies. I do not know about the postbags of other Members, but, judging from my own private postbag, I should say that I had a very good cross-section of opinion in my division. That propaganda must obviously tinge the questions of these investigators with their views is borne out by a most interesting criticism or critique which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" last February, written by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information. He was reviewing a book called "War begins at home," by Maas Observation, compiled apparently by two gentlemen, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Madge. Their organisation would appear to be doing what the Ministry of Information has sent out these investigators to do. What the connection may be between the two organisations I do not know. It may be close or it may not; but, at any rate, the hon. Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary made a most illuminating comment when he said:
Mr. Harrisson (whom I should imagine to be impatient and alert rather than strictly scientific) is honest enough to confess that it is difficult to sift all this amount of evidence without developing a certain bias, or at least a point of view.
That argues that, in the hon. Gentleman's mind, there is at least a realisation that you cannot go round and ask all these questions without putting a certain amount of bias into what you say. He went on:
In so far as any central theory runs through this book, it is that the Press and the politicians have little idea what the masses are really thinking and feeling.
I cannot speak for any other Member of Parliament—no man can speak for anybody but himself—but I venture to say that I do know what the people are thinking in my Division, and that the Press—very much maligned, and sometimes quite rightly so—have means of finding out public opinion. The most illuminating thing in this excellent critique is of course the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry of Information and others should be most grateful for these observations. It is thereby obvious that the Minister would smile upon the activities of this Mass-Observation organisation. He went on to say:


Interesting examples are provided of the unthinking optimism of the masses, of their indulgence in rumour, and of the bewilderment which assails them, owing to the absence of news.
I am glad that the masses are optimistic. It sometimes requires some effort to be optimistic. I said just now that I believed that the masses were optimistic, exceedingly courageous and quite unperturbed. The Ministry of Information has been set up to provide the unthinking and bewildered masses with news. Perhaps the masses would not be so overwhelmed if they had some news from the Ministry for a change. So much for the Mass Observation organisation.
Scientific cross-sections of public opinion are notoriously unreliable. In this country, whatever our political views may be, we had a good example of this sort of thing in the Peace Ballot. The Peace Ballot may have gathered certain impressions from people, according to how their political views went, but it was and is now acknowledged to be a most unreliable reflection of public opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We have a difference of opinion about it at once but we can agree to differ quite happily. The "Literary Digest," a paper which I used to read fairly regularly, conducted a cross-section canvass of public opinion in the United States.

Sir Derrick Gunston: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend? Is he aware that the "Literary Digest" conducted a straw vote and never conducted a cross-section vote?

Sir A. Southby: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to continue. I am pointing out that it was by way of reflecting the views of the people of the United States—what they thought and what they were going to do. It was proved to be completely and utterly wrong. I venture to suggest that these so-called scientific investigations do not really give a cross-section of public opinion. If you could go into every home in England—which God forbid—and ask all sorts of questions, you might, indeed, get a considerable rebuff in some homes but you would get some idea at any rate of what people were thinking, in response to certain questions. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's organisation can have been very successful. I suggest that

if the activities of those who conducted this canvass and who, I presume, are still conducting it, were really satisfactory they would have found that public opinion was against his Silent Column proposals which had such a short and inglorious life. If these investigators wished to discover anything they would have found out the enormous feeling among the public against this Silent Column proposal, of which I hope we have heard the last.
I would like to give the House two examples of what is going on in regard to the activities of the Ministry of Information. Recently at Bournemouth, acting under the aegis of the Ministry, members of the Information Bureau were instructed quietly to spread it around, as I am informed, that those who could evacuate Bournemouth should do so. Nobody said a word to the town clerk about this; he was not consulted. He rang up the Ministry of Information and got on to somebody in a subordinate capacity who confirmed that the instruction had been given. The Regional Commissioner was then communicated with and apparently knew nothing about it all. When he was asked, he said that such instructions were entirely contrary to the present policy of the Government and that he considered that the spreading of such information was wrong. I am informed that the town clerk got in touch with a high official of the Ministry of Information who admitted that a mistake had been made in sending out these instructions. When it was pointed out that the least that could be done was to try to undo the harm that had been caused the Ministry flatly refused to take any steps in the matter. If that sort of instruction is going out, if the Regional Commissioner is not being told, if the town clerk who, after all, has some responsibility for the town in which he lives, is not allowed to know what is going on; if something is done contrary to the suggestion, "Stay where you are until invasion begins and only leave when the military authorities tell you to"—which seems to be the policy at the moment—and if the Ministry say, "Get out if you can," one can imagine the alarm and excitement which will be occasioned, even in a place so quiet as Bournemouth.
As hon. Members can imagine, I have had a considerable number of letters since


I put this Question on the Order Paper and since it was known that I proposed to raise it on the Adjournment, but a most illuminating comment is a cross-section of public opinion which I had to-day and which was quite unsolicited representing the average feeling of the man in the street. I was lunching in a restaurant in London and as I came out the attendant at the door who apparently knew me—I am afraid I did not know him—said, "I see, Sir, that you are going to have a word with Mr. Duff Cooper to-night." I said that I was proposing to discuss the question of the house-to-house canvass, to which I got the reply, "Well I am glad to hear that. It is utter rubbish." That is an unsolicited testimonial.
Those who read the "Times" must have been impressed by the letter which appeared this morning signed by somebody who calls himself "Country Parson." What function is it of the Ministry of Information to supply parsons with sermons? Its function is to provide information, not propaganda. The distribution of propaganda throughout this country in individual constituencies is something which this House and the country will not tolerate. If these investigators, be their number small or large, are to go round, they go to the constituencies of nearly all of us. This is a time when political warfare in the constituencies is at an end. Hon. Members have a certain amount of work to do. The Minister does not come to a Member and say, "What is the opinion in your constituency?" He sends an investigator. It is as wrong for a person who holds views of which I approve to go into a constituency of an hon. Member opposite and propagate those views from door to door, as it is for somebody else holding views with which I disagree to go into my constituency and pass those views round.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: Is it the hon. Member's view, therefore, that propaganda is not part of the work of the Ministry of Information?

Sir A. Southby: I think the work of the Ministry of Information is to give information and not to create public opinion by going round the houses. With regard to this organisation called Mass Observa-

tion, a book of which was reviewed by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, I have just seen its latest bulletin. This organisation works in much the same way, presumably, as these investigators. As I have said, I do not know how much they are in liaison. They may not be in liaison at all, or they may be in what is known as "close cahoots." Anyway, this is going on and going on pari pasu with the work of the right hon. Gentleman's organisation. Here is an investigator who is reporting something which is happening in Worktown:
War talk is down almost to nil again.

Viscountess Astor: Thank heavens!

Sir A. Southby: The hon. Lady says, "Thank heavens," and I agree. They are working. They have not got the time to chew over this sort of stuff.

Viscountess Astor: I wish we did not have the time.

Sir A. Southby: The investigator says of a little village in the west:
Villagers have been very busy this week picking fruit and getting in their last cut of hay. There is little concern or even awareness that the war is being fought in any of their talk. The general tone is light-hearted.
This is under the heading of "Apathy." The scientific investigator says that they are getting in the crops and not talking about the war. That is what we want them to do, to stop talking of the war and to get on with the business of making munitions and getting the crops in, and when they do that, let us not call it apathy. There was once somebody who said that he wanted to stir the natives of India out of their "Pathetic contenment." That is to say their apathy. I say: Leave the people of this country alone—

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: And not let them think?

Sir A. Southby: No, let them think in their own way. Do not try to be a sort of super-nursemaid. Let people have views of their own. Let them have a little individual expression of opinion and do not go snooping around trying to make them think in your particular way. This Mass Observation document refers to the Press. It seems to me that we are standing in a position of some difficulty. Here


is a reference by the Mass Observation bulletin to the "Sunday Pictorial." It quotes that paper as saying that there was a week towards the end of July which would find a place of honour in the history of the fight for freedom. It proceeds as follows:
The editor then goes on to list 'the case for jubilation,' i.e. (1) end of the silent column, (2) review of alien internments and consequent defeat for Sir John Anderson; (3) defeat of Sir John Anderson over courts-martial.
And it says
Indeed from the point of view of defeating or retreating Government policies, the past few days have been terrific.
It complains that this newspaper should have expressed that view. What has happened in the last week has not been something wrong. It has been an expression in this House of the opinions of the Members of this House. This House has performed its proper duty; it has expressed the views of its constituents. If the Government have had to alter or amend certain of their proposals, it is because the House has expressed the view of the people outside. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) remarked to-day that if this House had not debated the Emergency Powers Bill, but had let it be pushed through in five minutes, on the plea that we must have speed, the Amendment which the House passed, in the interests of the country, would not have been put into the Statute. That is true. If investigators are going round and telling people this as their view of what is being done in this House—"the case for jubilation," "end of the Silent Column," etc.—these people are doing a disservice to the State. They say:
The retreat on overseas evacuation, the retreat on Press censorship, the retreat on taking away A.R.P. wardens' uniforms, the retreat of the Burma road, all these and others reflect a bewildering lack of determination or co-ordination in the Government. For the first time since Churchill became Prime Minister, we have had a picture of Ministerial confusion and obvious lack of foresight, exactly comparable to the Chamberlain winter period of chaotic legislation, which we described and listed in 'War Begins at Home' (Chapter 13).
It cannot be right for investigators to try to find out public opinion by putting such a false construction on what has been done in this House by the elected representatives of the people.

Mr. Lindsay: Mr. Lindsay rose—

Sir A. Southby: Let me finish this point.

Mr. Lindsay: I just wanted to put this question.

Sir A. Southby: Since the hon. Member left his Ministerial job, in which, of course, he was silent on every subject except his own, he has not been prepared to let any other hon. Member express a view.

Mr. A. P. Herbert: Is the "Mass Observation" body, for which I share the hon. and gallant Member's detestation, now a part, or is the leader of that body now a part, of the organisation of the Ministry of Information? If so, I am entirely with the hon. and gallant Member. It is important that we should know whether that is the case.

Sir A. Southby: I am quoting this as an example of what these people who conduct inquiries are doing. "Mass Observation," which I and the hon. Member think is wrong, has been praised by the hon. Member who is now the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that the Ministry of Information should be grateful for whoever wrote this book, "War Begins at Home." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that there is no connection whatever between the two organisations. But there is a great similarity, it appears to me, in their methods. It seems to me that asking questions on the doorsteps of people, quite apart from the scientific value of the questions, may lead to all sorts of misunderstanding. It is reported that one of the investigators from the Ministry asked on the doorstep certain questions, of which I will quote these:
Do you read a paper right through, or merely glance at it?
Do you look for special advertisements or special articles by daily writers?
Would you miss posters and advertisement hoardings if they were abolished completely?
One of the channels whereby public opinion and criticism may be expressed is this House of Commons—up to the present, at any rate. Let us see to it that that channel is kept inviolate and intact. The other channel whereby reasonable criticism may be levelled at Ministers at the Government or at policy is the Press of this country. I venture to suggest that this House has many shortcomings and


many failings. The Press certainly have many shortcomings and many failings. We are the best people to remedy our shortcomings, and it has always seemed to me that the best people to remedy the shortcomings of the Press are the Press themselves. But the two things go together—a free House of Commons and a free Press. If you lose a free Press, you lose a free House of Commons, and if you lose a free House of Commons you lose a free Press. At a time when we are trying to maintain freedom and liberty and are making every conceivable sacrifice to that end, I suggest to my fellow Members in the House of Commons that we should do everything we can not only to maintain our own freedom and the freedom of the Press, but the freedom, as far as we can, of the individual. Talk of criticism about the Press has an ugly ring, because that was exactly what was done in Germany at the beginning of the Hitler regime. The investigators there worked under the Gestapo, and they went to the doorstep and said, "What paper do you read?" The next step was, "You ought not to read that; you ought to read another." It is perfectly true that when you begin to ask questions like that you must inevitably start to influence the person of whom you ask them. To me it is a dangerous beginning, putting in the thin end of the wedge and interfering with people's privacy and their liberty to control their own thoughts and actions, provided the community does not suffer thereby.
I hope and trust that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I personally have the greatest regard, will do something to meet a question which, however badly I have expressed it, does arouse a very real public resentment and apprehension. People do not like all sorts of investigators coming round and asking questions. Why should they? Whatever may be the merits—and I know the right hon. Gentleman's great literary capabilities and great knowledge—whatever I say may be the merits of this sort of scientific point of view, I do put it to him that this is not the time to start these investigations. It is a dangerous time, when people are already sufficiently harassed, to harass them still further on all sorts of subjects with questionnaires and demands for information. By all

means, let him issue from the B.B.C., much maligned though it is, proper information. I would like to see it taken over by the Government, and run by the Government under the control of this House, which is behind the Government, to disseminate real information.
I beg of him to do something inside the Ministry of Information to clear up the present system which is in operation, or at any rate to put a stop during the war to the activities of the people who are going about doing this work. This is a demand which comes from people of all sorts and in all walks of life in this country, and I believe it is one to which he would do very well to pay attention. There is no question of attacking him personally, nor, as some people are saying, of the Press attacking the Ministry of Information. I do not believe that that is true. I believe that the Press have a great apprehension that their liberties are being jeopardised. I do not believe that he has meant to put them in jeopardy, but there are people in the Ministry of Information who would be only too glad to smother the Press and to smother criticism in this House, and if this Debate has achieved no other useful purpose, it will at least have drawn attention to the feeling in regard to the operations of these people which are causing a great deal of resentment throughout the land.

9.10 p.m.

Sir Derrick Gunston: The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) accused the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) of speaking on every possible occasion since he left the Front Bench. I have never been on the Front Bench, and I do not think I have made a speech since the war began, so I cannot be accused of that. I ask the House, therefore, to forgive me for being somewhat nervous in addressing it again. I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member was somewhat confused in his thoughts. He seemed to muddle the people who are out to get information, with those who are attempting to give it, and when he talks about the freedom of the individual, and compares the people asking questions with the spies of Hitler, I would ask, has he never used his canvassers in the Epsom Division? He has never denounced them for work-


ing overtime for him. At any rate we ought to be grateful for their work because it has led us to enjoy his presence here. I think there has never been a case in which a Minister has been attacked more unjustly. The charge against the Minister by my hon. and gallant Friend is that he is attempting to suppress information and free opinion, but what is the Minister really trying to do? He is trying to find out, by a new and scientific method, the opinion of the people of this country. I should have thought that the Minister would be more useful if he knew what really is the opinion of people in the country. There have been many scoffs at new scientific methods, especially at those which have been used in America to find what public opinion is thinking, but there are always scoffs at scientific progress. This body has been accused of being stupid and—

Mr. Herbert: I apologise for putting the question but what does my hon. Friend mean by "scientific"?

Sir D. Gunston: I mean methods by which, using a proper cross-section and a balancing of the answers, you get, through trained investigators, near the opinion on a certain question held by the people who are asked the questions. Our party have been accused of being stupid and opposed to progress and scientific endeavour, but I have always denied that charge although the speeches of my hon. and gallant Friend sometimes fill me with grave misgivings. I believe that we can use these new scientific methods to get to know what public opinion is really thinking. The War Office has been attacked for not using modern methods; the Minister of Information has been attacked—indeed, all Ministers of Information have been attacked—for not getting on with the job. Now, when we have a Minister who is showing enterprise and energy he is attacked for doing too much. Surely, if the Ministry of Information is to do useful work it ought to give information on subjects on which people require opinions and I understand that the idea of this survey is to discover what people are thinking. Naturally, the Press are apt to be rather resentful of the use of other vehicles of information. The object and duty of the Press is to mould public opinion, and it naturally claims that it can also interpret public opinion.
The Minister of Information is attacked for using new methods. It is sometimes forgotten that he is not the first Minister who has used these methods. I believe this system was started under the late Minister but no attacks were made then. Why are they started now? I believe it is because the elephant never forgets. The House will remember that the present Minister of Information has always stood up against the Press when it has tried to dominate the House, or one party in the House. I well remember the election in the St. George's division when, by his victory, he for a long time asserted the right of a big party in this House to choose its own leaders, and he has never been forgiven for his victory. I believe that is one of the reasons why we are getting the attacks to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend talked about the freedom of the Press and Parliament. I would remind him that this House took action the other day against the advice of the Press when it voted for a Secret Session, and the spleen of the "Evening Standard" is shown in that very questionable article appearing in this evening's issue.
My hon. and gallant Friend has quoted, as an example of the inexactitude of these new methods, the "Literary Digest." I think he must have been reading the leading article in the "Daily Mail" this morning. I feel sure he cannot have studied the modern methods in the United States. As he referred to the "Literary Digest," I think he was speaking of the prophecy that it made for the election in America in 1936. It prophesied that Mr. Landon would be returned, and it was wrong. But the "Literary Digest" founded its prophecy on a straw vote, which is totally opposed to a scientific method of cross-section. He also quoted the Peace Ballot. Again that was an emotional affair and not opinion obtained by quiet questioning. Rightly or wrongly, I do not think you can compare it with a balanced result from a proper cross-section. It is interesting to see what actually happened in America in 1936. The "Literary Digest" said that Mr. Landon would be elected. The Gallup survey suggested, first, that the "Literary Digest" straw vote would indicate that Mr. Landon would be elected. That was before the "Literary Digest" made up its mind. The "Literary Digest" did tip Mr. Landon. The Gallup survey said Mr. Roosevelt would be returned. Mr.


Roosevelt was returned and the Gallup forecast was correct within 6 per cent. of Mr. Roosevelt's votes. My hon. and gallant Friend has shown some surprise that the questioning of a few people should give a fairly scientific result. The interesting part of these surveys is that they do not depend so much on the number of people questioned as on the scientific differentiation of the cross-section. There was a very interesting example in America in 1936, when they took a survey on a certain question. They examined 30,000 people. The answer was "No." The first 500 voted 54.9 per cent "No"—

Mr. Herbert: What was the question?

Sir D. Gunston: I do not think I have it with me at the moment. The Senior Burgess of Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) is very careful in his words; may I remind him that I am dealing with methods? I can look up what the question was, if he likes. The first 500 voted 54.9 per cent. against; the first 1,000 voted 53.9 per cent. against; and the 30,000 voted 55.5 per cent. against. The actual degree of inaccuracy between the 30,000 and the first 500 was only .06 per cent. This shows how accurate these methods can be. I know it may be said that we do not want American methods in this country, but we are very glad to have American aeroplanes Surely, if we are dealing with modern methods in the front line, we are entitled to use modern methods on the home front in trying to find out what the people are thinking. In times like the present, there must be certain grievances, apprehensions and fears. Surely, we ought to allay them. We cannot find out what those fears or apprehensions may be unless we ask the people, and I believe this method is one of the best means of finding out.

Sir A. Southby: Do I understand that my hon. Friend still adheres to his previous statement that to get accurate results it does not matter how few people are questioned?

Sir D. Gunston: It does not matter up to a certain point. If you take one person, such as the commissionaire who was cross-examined by my hon. and gallant Friend at lunch to-day, then you do

not get a cross-survey. A cross-section must be of sufficient size to give accurate results. But it need not be very large. If the Government are to provide answers to questions which the people want answered, the Government must find out what those questions are. To give an example, let me take the German broadcasts by "Lord Haw-Haw." Do we know whether they are doing harm or not? I suggest that they are not, but surely it is the duty of the Government to find out, and one of the best means of finding out is by these surveys. Take the example of the leaflets issued by the Government, such as the one issued the other day. The only way to find out if they are successful is by asking certain sections of the people who have received them.
What possible objection is there to this method? The only objection is if the fears put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom are well founded. Is it true that people snoop around and put suggestions and propaganda into people's minds, or is it true that they go round openly to see people and ask them what they think are the answers to various questions? The hon. and gallant Member talks about spying. What does spying mean? It means you go round not allowing people to know who you are and trying to find out what people are thinking without their knowledge. I suggest that these surveys are carried out in a different way. They are carried out by people asking questions openly. They are secret only in the fact that the names of the people questioned are never known. If that is so, and I hope it is, what fear can there be of introducing any of the Gestapo methods suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman? When the real stress comes, people will want all the moral support we can give. Is there any harm in finding out their anxiety? The whole agitation against this method is, I believe, a Press agitation. I hope the Minister of Information will stand up against the Press to-night, as he has done with such success in the past.

9.28 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I do not think anyone can accuse me of being a tame supporter of the Government, and I hope I shall not be accused, in what I am about to say, of trying to curry


favour. I want to be quite clear what it is I am defending, and what it is I am not defending. I am not defending the Minister of Information, but as a matter of fact I think he is better than his two predecessors. I can never have any other feeling for him than that of admiration, but I think his qualities fit him better for some other office, and that some other people would fill his office better than he. However, I wish to defend this particular method of acquiring information, because, after all, it is against it that the attack has been directed. It has been attacked as if it was something new and as if the people of this country were experiencing it for the first time, and bitterly resented people calling on the doorstep. But it is nothing new at all. A great number of businesses have employed this method for years and years, without public protest. The B.B.C. have used this method to find out what the public think about B.B.C. programmes, and I think I am right in saying that they asked 800 questions a week, and have done so for years, without public protest. The G.P.O., under the direction of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, carried through extensive investigation by precisely this method to find out just what were the prices to produce the greatest possible expansion. They altered their policy as a result of that inquiry, and, taking it by and large, it was extraordinarily successful. On this occasion, although I cannot say it for all the activities of the Government, I think they have selected the right man for the job—Professor Arnold Plant. Professor Plant is not some academic, armchair scientist. He is a man highly respected by the business world and by people who have to conduct these investigations and test them with cash results.

Mr. Herbert: The hon. Member has mentioned Professor Plant. May we know who and what he is?

Sir R. Acland: He was mentioned yesterday, in reply to a Question, as being in charge of the team of investigators. When the Incorporated Institute of British Advertisers wanted to know what was the effect of broadcasting from the Continent to England and conducted a survey of public opinion, they engaged Professor Plant to carry it out. I submit that the Ministry is applying the right method in this case. I hope that I

shall not be accused of copying the technique of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when I say that the House surely has to decide whether the Ministry of Information should itself be informed of what the people of this country are feeling at any particular time. If the House decides that the Ministry of Information shall be informed, the question is, how shall they be informed? Shall they be informed by the random reports that come from one individual or another? Certainly. Let anybody who has any information as to the state of public morale pass it on to the Ministry.
I have a friend who is a housing manager in one of the most progressive boroughs of London. In the course of her duties she gathers what public opinion is on certain issues and passes it on to the Ministry. She had an interesting experience after a speech by the Prime Minister. A tenant from whom she was collecting rent expressed the view that the Prime Minister was "a very nice gentleman; he takes such an interest in the war, doesn't he?" Is there anything wrong in that? That kind of information submitted by individuals is useful to the Ministry. If it is right for the Ministry to obtain information in that way, it is also right for them to adopt rather less random methods to check up the reports which they receive from all quarters. I agree with the hon. Member for Thorn-bury (Sir D. Gunston) that these methods are scientifically accurate. By taking a comparatively small number of people and deliberately, frankly and aboveboard asking them their views, and then weighting the results in accordance with age, occupation and income groups, you can get within 1, 2 or 3 per cent. of what the feelings of the people really are.

Mr. Herbert: Does my hon. Friend really say that for an advertiser or newspaper canvasser to say to a man, "Do you believe in Hitler or soup or tea?" or whatever it is, is the same thing as a representative of the Government going to the ordinary citizen and saying, "Do you think the war is being conducted properly?" or, "Are you satisfied with the tea ration?".

Sir R. Acland: I think I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman by giving one very substantial qualification to the support


which I am giving to the Minister. It is said that all this work can be done by the Press, but that I substantially deny, because the results of letter writing to the Press are entirely different from what inquiries from a representative cross-section of the people show them as really thinking. The Minister's predecessor cannot contradict me if I am wrong, and so it is unfair to ask him. I suggest that the postbag opinion received by the B.B.C. was always substantially different from the cross-section of opinion which they got by asking 800 people a week what their views were on this and that. The letters received by the Press and the B.B.C. have been ten to one against the B.B.C's. commentary upon a recent air fight, and yet I submit that an inquiry which went straight to the people asking what they thought of it would show that the great majority of the people appreciated it.
I would say this to the Press, and I challenge denials, that well over one-quarter of the letters received by the Press come on headed notepaper, and yet we know that not one in a hundred of the people possess headed notepaper, so that in that way you are getting only a cross-section of middle-class opinion. Moreover, upon any issue the people who are against it more readily write to the Press than do the people who are in favour of it. The letters received by one paper to-day show that fifty to one of the population of this country would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) were to resign, whereas the survey proportion is only three, and that is significant. The "Daily Mail" quotes the experience of the "Literary Digest" to show that these inquiry methods are ineffective, but that is wrong. That incident proves that when that newspaper attempted a survey among its own readers, when it took over z,000,000 samples it was wildly inaccurate, whereas the Gallup survey, taking a 1,000th part of those numbers, told what the result would be and was right within a very few per cent. Then it is said that this method is unpopular with the public, who passionately resent it. The "Evening News" to-night says that it is not the fault of the newspapers if the Minister of Information has not a very clear idea of the nation's attitude towards the social survey carried

out by 60 well paid investigators. I think in this matter the "Evening Standard" is more accurate. After all, the "Evening Standard" was as much opposed to the right hon. Gentleman at the time of the by-election which has been referred to as was the "Evening News," and it says:
In the midst of the hurricane howling around the new corps of doorstep investigators are a number of newspapermen; in fact they are creating a storm.
I think that on that matter the "Evening Standard" is more accurate than the "Evening News." Moreover, the people of this country do not reset this method of inquiry. The "Daily Mail" itself has published the fact in its columns that 2 per cent. bang the door in the face of questioners, 10 per cent. do not answer the questions that are asked of them, and 88 per cent. are willing to talk. If we were to listen to the hon. and gallant Member and to the Press, we would imagine that at this moment there is a typhoon of resentment against these methods howling through the length and breadth of this land. There is no resentment against doorstep investigation, against the services and asking whether people find the tea ration too large or too small, or whatever the question is.
I happened to ask one of the ordinary market services to-day, which conducts these inquiries on behalf of commercial firms, and may be able to give an answer to any question for any hon. Member of this House, if it is wanted, for some particulars about its work. These people have had their investigators out this morning, conducting the ordinary routine inquiries. I do not know what questions they were asking, but they were regular questions to which some commercial firm or private individual wanted to know the answer. In the course of this morning, in the middle of the typhoon of rage against these methods, their questioners conducted 80 interviews.

Mr. Stokes: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Sir R. Acland: No, not at this point. This organisation did not receive one cross word from any of those 80 people, all of whom they interviewed this morning, in the middle of this passionate, public rage, which is supposed to be howling against these doorstep methods. Of course, 80 people are only a small number, but there was not one single expres-


sion of resentment from those 80 people. On the contrary. A very small proportion, 2 per cent., may have resented the questions, but I suggest that the people of tins country are extraordinarily glad to be asked questions.

Mr. Stokes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him whether this investigator of his declared what he had come for, and whether he was selling soup or snooping round for the Government?

Sir R. Acland: I do not know what the word "snooping" is. The suggestion is made that people resent being asked questions on the doorstep, and I am merely giving information to the House that this organisation, standing on the doorstep and asking questions, in the ordinary commercial way, asked 80 people and did not receive a single resentful answer.

Mr. H. Beaumont: Would the hon. Gentleman state one of the questions?

Sir R. Acland: With great respect, that is irrelevant.

Mr. Beaumont: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Sir R. Acland: No.

Mr. Herbert: I want to return to the previous questions which I put to the hon. Gentleman earlier. I am enjoying his speech very much, as we all are. I asked him whether there was any distinction between commercial people asking questions and representatives of the Government. He tells us about these 80 people who answered so politely, but I want to know (a) whether they were Government questioners, and (b) whether, if they were, the hon. Gentleman thinks that all the questions were quite frankly answered. That is what matters.

Sir R. Acland: I was indicating, when the hon. Gentleman asked me exactly the same questions, that I was coming to that point later. I do not want to exaggerate in the least the significance of what I am saying to the House. It is only that some hon. and gallant Members suggest that people resent merely having questions asked on the doorstep. The only point I am seeking to put to the House is that the great mass of the population of this country do not resent being

asked to answer questions. On the contrary, they feel rather proud, braced and encouraged that people should want to know their opinions. One of the things that discourage people in this country is that they are left to feel that their opinions do not matter. The mere fact of a citizen of this country being asked questions on behalf of the Government, who want to know: "What is your opinion upon this matter, because upon your opinion we shall direct our policy?" has, in itself, a good effect upon morale, and makes people feel that they are taking part in the total effort of this country. May I call attention in this regard to the outrageous conduct of one of the chief constables in this country, if it is correctly reported in the "Daily Mail"? He said:
I have warned householders through the Press to be on their guard. I killed Communism and the Fascists in this town, and I intend to kill anything else which will persuade people to express their views.
I believe that is in Derby.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have got an incorrect report of what the chief constable said.

Sir R. Acland: If that is so, then I apologise. But for the moment the Government are pursuing this policy. What right has the chief constable to make himself an authority to warn people not to express their views? I do not want to be attacked because I appear to be defending more than I really am defending. I am not defending the Ministry's conduct as a whole over the last months. I think there is a great deal to be most seriously criticised. I am not defending the use that is made of this information by the Ministry itself or by other Ministries. I would suggest that some of these reports show that the people of this country are baffled by the way in which the Government are failing to take them into their confidence as a whole, and that others show that they are bewildered by the meagre publication and the late publication of news. I suggest that these reports show that the great majority of this country want something to happen which will prove to them beyond doubt that we are fighting this war for a new world order and not for


any risk or chance at all of returning to the world order which we knew before. I believe that the Government will soon have to act on those reports. I am not defending, either in large or small matters, the way in which the Government make an excuse for these things.
I want to add one vital qualification to the support which I have given to the Ministry which I hope will satisfy the hon. Member who has questioned me. I said that this matter of collecting information is a legitimate method to be used by the Government. The great question is: "In this country what is government?" In Germany we know what government is, as far as this is concerned. It is Dr. Goebbels, and he collects information which he uses, not for the purpose of following public opinion, but for the purpose of discovering in which direction he must direct his propaganda in order to make of public opinion what he wants it to be. That is very important, because in this country government does not consist of Dr. Goebbels, it does not consist of the right hon. Gentleman, and it does not consist of the right hon. Gentleman plus other Ministers, plus a certain number of civil servants. In this country government resides in this House as a whole, and therefore I say that everything I have said in defence of this method of gathering information is subject to this: It is only legitimate for the Government to use these matters if they make their results available to the House as a whole, so that we may all know what is the state of public opinion, because it is not right for the Government alone to possess this scientific and accurate knowledge so that they can know in which direction they must conduct their propaganda in order to produce the effect which they desire, when the information is not available to us. Therefore, subject to the fact that, of course, the Ministry will not be able to publish reports which give information to the enemy; subject to the fact that very often when they receive a report relating to a particular place they will be able to publish it only when they have expunged the name, substituting "a town in the North-West of England" or something of that sort, I suggest to the Minister that if he wants to continue this

method of obtaining information, he must make the information available to the whole of government in the democratic sense—that is, to the whole of this House of Commons.

9.51 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I do not believe that the people of this country are bewildered or baffled in the least. I get bewildered and baffled when I return from the people of the country to the House of Commons. I believe that the people of the country are united in their desire to support the National Government, and I believe that, far from the Government or the Ministry of Information being out of touch with the people, it is this present House of Commons which shows that it is very much out of touch with the country in some ways. And I am convinced that a part of the Press is completely out of touch.

Mr. Herbert: Mr. Herbert rose—

Viscountess Astor: Do not interrupt me. I warn the hon. Member that I am not the kind of lady who turns the other cheek. I feel very serious about this, and I think the House of Commons ought to take the Debate very seriously. We have constant personal attacks on Ministers of the National Government. That is not good enough. The country wanted a National Government, and they have it; and they do not understand the goings-on in the House of Commons or in the Press. I am not going on a house-to-house survey. I know the ordinary housewives. They like attention; they do not in the least mind answering questions. Many of them are leading very anxious lives, and are terribly strained. This gives them something to talk about, and may change their thoughts. I do not believe that there is this feeling in the country against this survey, but I believe that there is a feeling about this constant sniping at the National Government. The country was never in its history more united than it is now. It is far more united than we seem to be in the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are united here."] If we are united, we dissemble our love in a very strange way. The country, also, is far too busy working to win the war to pay a great deal of attention to the House of Commons. I rejoice that, owing to the shortage of paper,


they do not have to read the whole of our Debates.

Mr. Herbert: May I—

Viscountess Astor: No, I will get on with my speech. I will not pay any attention to the hon. Member. We know that National Governments, Coalition Governments, are never popular; but they are a war time necessity. We know that certain Members in my party find it very distasteful to see Members of the Labour party sitting on the Government Front Bench, and that it is very distasteful to Members of the extreme Left on the other side to see their leaders sitting with the leaders of the late Government. There are also disappointed and dissatisfied Members, who have either been turned out of the Government or think that they could do better.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Noble Lady taking a cross-section?

Viscountess Astor: I have only one object, and that is to wake the House of Commons up, to see what we are doing by these constant attacks. We would not dare do it against the Government as a whole. You really cannot want to beat the Government by first attacking one Minister and then another, and so pulling them down. If you do not think that Ministers are doing well, you have your remedy. Why do you not go to the Government and make charges against them? You can easily do it. I am not standing up for any individual Minister, but if we want to play into the hands of Hitler, we cannot do it better than by trying to weaken the Government by making these individual attacks. I have watched what has happened in this House in regard to the Home Secretary. There could have been nothing more unfair than the universal outcry against the Home Secretary. It should not have been done.

Mr. Herbert: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lady entitled to refer to attacks on the Home Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: The Noble Lady is quite in order on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Herbert: May I ask the Noble Lady why, if the nation is so united, as she so truly says, it is necessary to have this canvass?

Viscountess Astor: I really do wish the hon. Member would allow me to continue. We all know that he is very witty and amusing, but really some of us feel very strongly about this matter. We know what we are up against and what effect it is having in the country. As for the Minister of Information and the attack against him, it was only a month ago when we were in a jam that the Press and everybody said that he had made the most magnificent speeches and had pulled the country together. The people do not understand why, all of a sudden, a man, who was said to be doing his job well, should be pulled down. An ordinary man said to me to-day, "I do not understand why the House of Commons and the Press should make this terrific personal attack." At a time of war and crisis people do not like personal things. They do not mind an attack upon a Government or a policy, but they do resent personal attacks. It is that against which I am protesting, and I believe that I am representing really the feeling of the average person in the House of Commons.
And now about the position of the Press. I know all about the Ministry of Information. It has had a very hard time. It has made mistakes, and it will probably make more mistakes. But if we do not want the Ministry of Information, if the House of Commons do not want it, we ought to go to the Government and explain the reasons why we do not want it and give a reasoned case against the Ministry of Information. That would be the fair and right way to do it during the war. If the Press have a real grievance against the Ministry of Information, why do not they get together and go to the Government and say why they do not want the Ministry of Information? You cannot say that the Press are not well organised. I belong to the Press, and I know the Press. There are no greater trade unions than the doctors, lawyers and the Press, and the Press are as well organised as the doctors. If they have a grievance, let them put it forward, but, as a matter of fact, you cannot speak of the Press as the Press. Some of the Press is good some of the time, and some of it is bad some of the time. None is good or bad all the time. I believe that the Press are working on the whole pretty well with the Ministry


of Information. As for saying that the Ministry of Information wanted to suppress the Press, the Press know themselves that they have an understanding with the Ministry of Information. I am sorry for the Press. They have a very difficult time. It is a terrible time for them. You cannot blame them for resenting not getting more news. The tragedy about the Press is that it is not the news it gives but the news the people want. We all know that during peace-time bad news is good news. If there is a long story about a happy family which goes to Brighton and mother and father have a good time with their six children, no one reads it, but if the same family goes to Brighton and the husband runs off with a dizzy blonde, then we all read it. The Press has to give what is called glamorous news. I believe that at this moment the country is not clamouring for bad news. The people do not want news which they know they should not get.
I represent a constituency which has been as hard hit as any in the country because of the tragedies of the ships from the West Country that have gone down. I have watched women there for weeks and months waiting—like some of us who have not heard about our sons—for news about their relatives. They do not want news which will play into the hands of the enemy. I found these people extraordinarily patient and understanding. They want true news, but they understand that there is certain news that they cannot get. I have found no discontent. The Press are having a bad time, but they must remember that so are the Government. The Government have not only to deal with the country, the war and the Press, but with the Services. The Services do not like talking to the Press; if they did, they would not be the fine Services they are. They hate giving away news; they are not used to Press propaganda and notices. A good sailor, soldier or airman does not care about Press publicity. That is one of the real difficulties which the Government and, I have no doubt, the Minister of Information, have had to face.
Here we are fighting for our very lives, yet we are constantly misrepresenting the feeling of the country. Really, in some cases it is disgusting. The country is united behind the National Government. If people do not like a Minister, they

ought to give a reasoned case why the Government should gel rid of him. The Press can do it, and they know it, but they are not always right. Look at their great outcry against aliens. Now they have turned right round, but the country is always sound, especially in war-time. People realise that we are fighting a war for justice and mercy which, I believe, are divine qualities. We have God behind us, and we know that if we do not put these qualities into practice in our public and private lives, we are misrepresenting what we are fighting for. I say to Members of the House of Commons: Come back to real things; let us do away with this smallness and unworthiness. We have a great battle before us, and we shall win, but it would be far better if the Members, instead of sitting here and criticising the Government, would go back to their constituencies and see what their people there are doing and feeling. They would find that the courage and morale of the people do not need anything except to be followed. When the Press subject Ministers to bitter personal attacks they are misrepresenting the feeling of this country and aiding Hitler.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Mander: It seems to me that, if the Noble Lady had her own way, there would be very little work for the House of Commons to do at all. I think she was quite wrong in suggesting that there is anything like a personal attack. Everyone who has spoken has praised the right hon. Gentleman most highly. No one has a greater admiration for him than I have, but it is a perfectly proper Parliamentary proceeding, when we think that something that is being carried on, in this case not a major thing, is contrary to the public interest that we should take the facilities that a Motion for the Adjournment offers to call public attention to it and try to persuade the Minister that it would be a wiser course to withdraw a policy for which he is in no way personally responsible. It would be no reflection on him if he felt that it was right to withdraw the policy which is now being pursued.
I want to come to what is the main point of the discussion, which I do not think has been sufficiently emphasised. Mass observation, to my mind, is perfectly wise and proper. It may be a


necessary thing to carry out in ordinary private life. Business man have done it for investigating markets, Members have done it, and political parties have done it. But it is a very different thing when you have the Government of the day trying to investigate and control and play their part in public opinion. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous thing indeed. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) says his hon. and gallant Friend employed canvassers in Epsom, those canvassers were not paid for by the Government. They were paid for by private individuals, who are perfectly entitled to send anyone to ask anyone else whatever questions they like.

Mr. Hammersley: Is the hon. Member giving the House to understand that my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that these investigators were in fact canvassers?

Mr. Mander: They were going there as persons in the employment of the Government asking people what they thought about the Government or about this or that Minister. It is obvious that that is a very dangerous position. It is contrary to the way in which we conduct our affairs. You can get your information through voluntary channels without this interference with public opinion. There are lots of different channels through which this information could be supplied. First of all, there is the Tom Harrisson mass observation scheme itself, which is carried on voluntarily and is available to the Government. Then there are the political parties, which have their means of reporting what is going on, and the suggestion has been made that the nursing services, which are going into the homes all over the land, in town and country, and have many opportunities of knowing what people are thinking, would be able to supply most valuable information. It has been suggested by persons connected with them, and they have offered their services.

Mr. H. Beaumont: You will only get a cross section of people who are sick.

Mr. Mander: I do not imagine that all sick people hold the same opinions. After all, the main source of public information is Members of Parliament, and those of us who are not able to be on active service

and who are in touch with our constituencies ought to know what the people there are thinking. We are capable of coming here and expressing on behalf of the people we represent their views on the situation and on what they want done. It would be far better to rely upon the proper constitutional procedure than to try this new innovation. The Ministry of Information have adopted some curious practices. Only to-day I was told that in a certain part of England where there was an Advisory Committee to the Ministry of Information and that Committee put forward one or two ideas about the Ministry's policy which were not quite in accordance with the Ministry's views, they were told, "We do not want you to give us advice, we do not want you to criticise the Ministry; your job is to back up the Ministry." That is utterly wrong. An Advisory Committee's function is to tell what it honestly thinks, and not stand behind the Minister. I have given the facts in a certain case, and if there is machinery of that kind, it shows that it is all the wiser to avoid any new system of this kind. I do not object in the least to mass observation if it is done in a voluntary way, but I think it is highly dangerous, contrary to our traditions, and an innovation that ought to be resisted, to have paid Government officers going about the country interfering with and controlling public opinion.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I find that as each succeeding hon. Member addresses the House, I am inclined to take a point of view opposite to that which he expresses, and I am wondering what my state of mind will be when the Debate concludes. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) gave us a very long homily on how we should conduct ourselves, but I did not notice that she expressed any view upon the matter under discussion, namely, the advisability or inadvisability of the census of opinion being taken. The Noble Lady instructed us that we were not in any circumstances to criticise Ministers in the House. She suggested that if we wanted to criticise a Minister, we should approach the Prime Minister and report that Minister to him. Surely, the correct practice is to follow the House of Commons manner, to bring the matter before


the House, thereby affording the Minister the right and opportunity of defending himself, if such defence be necessary. The Noble Lady has a very short memory. Within the last three or four weeks she has made a speech in the House on overseas evacuation in which she was not at all sparing in her criticisms of the Minister.

Viscountess Astor: They were constructive criticisms.

Mr. Beaumont: The Noble Lady was also instructive to-night, although she made one slip. She said that she belonged to the Press; I thought that the Press partly belonged to her.

Viscountess Astor: No, the hon. Member is wrong.

Mr. Beaumont: I suggest that this Debate should not be construed as an attack upon the Minister of Information. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be glad of the opportunity of defending his point of view, and no doubt he will make a very excellent case. He would much sooner have criticism expressed in this House than await snooping and sniping criticism from outside. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) gave an illustration of a certain investigation which was conducted to-day. I believe he said that 80 people were asked a certain question and that not one of them resented the question being asked; but I submit that it entirely depends on the nature of the questions. I can imagine people going to a house and asking, "Is your husband at home?" The answer might be "No" or "Yes," and possibly there would be no resentment in giving the answer. [An HON. MEMBER: "It depends who asked the question."] I suggest if we are to judge the value of this particular investigation, we should understand and appreciate the particular questions.
I am extremely confused in regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) said. He told us of a pathetic incident when a commissionaire ventured a remark with regard to the approaching Debate. He did not say if he registered alarm when the commissionaire approached, or the commissionaire registered despondency when the hon. Member left. I suggest

that if the hon. and gallant Member had asked that commissionaire, unbeknown to him, that he was going to speak in the Debate to-night, "Do you believe in or approve of this policy?" the commissionaire would have registered no resentment against the asking of such a question. He also made reference to the Peace Ballot. That was conducted on entirely different lines. First of all, it was not a localised ballot, but a national ballot, and, secondly, it was a ballot of not one day but spread over a number of weeks and months, by which time the people understood the questions being asked. Thirdly, the ballot was conducted by people who lived for the most part in the district, and in many cases knew the persons on whom they called. Therefore there is no relationship at all between the Peace Ballot and the kind of investigation which is now being conducted. In fact, so much import was placed on this ballot that upon it was framed the foreign policy of the Government of that day, if the 1935 election campaign is a true criterion.
The hon. and gallant Member also decried certain efforts of the Ministry of Information, and one was the fact that they were arranging to offer sermons to parsons. It might be that these sermons would disturb lethargy in the churches and thereby have a beneficial result. What I suggest is that at the present time the best source of information for ascertaining what is in the minds of the people in any area is the Member of Parliament, providing that the Member does not rely on letters which are in his postbag every morning, and that he pays not only periodical but long visits to his constituency, and does not visit only people who are friendly disposed towards him, but sits, as it were, in public court and receives anyone who wishes to see him. In that way it is possible for a Member of Parliament to obtain the opinion of a true cross-section of his own constituency. I speak as one who has tried it. In my constituency last week in four days I had an innumerable number of people coming to me, with difficulties and so forth. I found, as the Noble Lady said, that right throughout the country there is a grim determination to carry on. There is a high morale, and the people do not need to be comforted or to be aroused. I


would rather the Ministry expended their energies in the countries with which we are at war than in this country. I believe that this scheme is inappropriate at the present time, because I do not think it will produce results. I do not believe there is any great resentment about it, but it will not produce any results of value. It would be better if the effort that is being expended on it were transferred into some other channel and that propaganda carried on abroad, where it is needed. I consider that the main function of the Ministry of Information is propaganda of the most effective and efficient kind such as will bring dismay and disillusionment to the enemy and gratification and eventual victory to this country.

10.22 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I find myself at a serious disadvantage. I cannot emulate the hon. Member for Barn-staple (Sir R. Acland) in his catholic knowledge of the Press, although I have had a little over half a century's experience of it, nor can I profess to speak on behalf of masses of people as he did. I can speak only for myself. I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the assurance from all parts of the House that nobody wishes to embarrass them in their task, but that everybody wishes to give them such assistance as they can, based upon their experiences. I say that strongly, because I am more conscious, for a particular reason, of the enormous difficulties of their work than any other Member. Apart from my own experience in that direction, I realise that my right hon. Friend inherited an appalling legacy and that he is still struggling, in the midst of his constructive work, to get in order the great mass of undigested personnel with which he is saddled. This inquiry is one of the unfortunate legacies of the Minister. It is like the steam-roller in all bureaucracies; it goes steadily on gathering force and momentum, and unless it is pulled up now, it may become a more serious encumbrance to the Ministry than it is now.
Does not this discussion narrow itself down to two simple issues? First, is this inquiry necessary, and, second, if it is necessary, is this the best means of effecting it? Is it necessary to have this costly means of ascertaining what is the opinion

of the country? I would answer in one sentence, as the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) did. This country is absolutely united behind the National Government, and there is, therefore, nothing left to find out. Take the second point. Assuming that it is necessary to take special measures to ascertain what is the feeling of the country, are these the best measures to adopt? In all seriousness, I would ask the Minister to reconsider that point. I think he has been rather seriously misled by those who tell him that this is a recognised method with businesses and newspapers. When a business conducts a canvass it is not to ascertain information but to sell something, and that is a very different object. It is true that sometimes these visits are welcome. I know that many housewives always welcome the visit of the canvasser for a vacuum cleaner, because they get the house cleaned as a matter of demonstration and do not have to pay for it. I know people also who have had "share pushers" call on them, and they may have welcomed them on the first occasion, but I have never heard that a repeat visit was welcome. What business firms and newspapers have done in this way is totally irrelevant. I feel very strongly, first, that there is no paramount and urgent necessity for an inquiry regarding something which we know already, and for the reasons given by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) it is not the kind of inquiry which it is desirable to have conducted in any circumstances by a Government agency. For these reasons I ask the Minister to look again at this legacy, this unfortunate legacy, which he has inherited, and to ask himself whether it is necessary, I will not say to antagonise people—it is not a question of antagonising them—but to create a certain amount of feeling about the Ministry in a matter which is not of urgent importance. The Minister must know the feeling of the country, and the place to ascertain the feeling of the country is the House of Commons. If a Member does not know from his contact with his constituency and from his postbag what is the general feeling in his constituency, then there must be something lacking in his contact with the constituency which he is supposed to serve.
Then I would draw attention to the absurd contradiction into which the hon.
Member for Barnstaple landed himself. He said, "You take the verdict of the cross-section who have been the subject of your inquiry, and then you take the opinion of the House of Commons." But suppose they differ. Which is to prevail? Is the view of the House of Commons, to which the Minister is responsible, to prevail, or the opinion of the inquiry? Is the Minister to learn from the inquiry that the opinion of the House of Commons is entirely wrong? That is a small sample of the difficulties into which an inquiry of this kind, at this time, may land the Minister and the country. I would repeat my assurance that I wish to strengthen and assist the Minister, and I would urge him to push on with the constructive work of the Ministry and not to saddle himself with a side-line like this, which I am sure will add to his difficulties.

10.29 p.m.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have nothing to complain of in the tone of the Debate to-night, and I am grateful to my fellow Members for the flattering tributes which some of them have been good enough to pay me, and for the general temper of calmness and the judicial spirit in which they have judged the particular experiment which we are discussing. My hon. and gallant Friend who opened the Debate said that the proper function of the Ministry of Information was to give information, and I quite agree with him, but I would point out that in order to give information you must first obtain it. It is not the duty of the Ministry of Information to invent or to draw upon their imagination; they have to get the facts before they can impart them to others. What are the subjects upon which information is looked for? The greatest factor is for the Government to know the state of mind of the people.
The word "morale," which irritates the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Mr. A. P. Herbert), does not mean the same thing as courage. Good morale does not simply mean courage, and bad morale does not merely mean cowardice. Morale is something much broader than that. What do I mean by morale? You want to find out what people are thinking, what is worrying them, what are their difficulties, whom they trust and whom they distrust—the

difficulties that people are finding in living their lives in war-time and which of them can be removed: surely these are matters of legitimate inquiry. If we are agreed so far, can anybody dispute that the Government should, so far as possible, be in possession of the latest and most accurate knowledge in these matters?
The next question is: How are the Government to obtain this information? The first channel of information is undoubtedly Parliament, the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people, but there are limits, valuable and immense as is the information which can be obtained through Members, to its accuracy, its modernity and, if I may say so without disparagement upon myself and my colleagues, to our own qualifications. We were almost all elected on a definite party basis. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) no doubt feels quite genuinely that he can speak for—I will not say 100 per cent.—90 per cent. of his constituency. I wonder whether, in those days of party politics which we are all glad to see temporarily laid aside, he regards the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) as accurately representing the views of his constituency? Hon. Members have all expressed different views, but were we not all elected for the purpose of carrying on party politics?
Some hon. Members have been elected since, and are merely carrying on the state of parties existing in their constituencies. All those things are limitations upon our usefulness at the present time. Other hon. Members are carrying on other activities by serving the State in many ways, and are no longer available as representatives of their constituencies. The usefulness of Members of Parliament is at present limited—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but it still remains rather extraordinary—I consider it is so—that whilst my hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to say that I was always courteous to him and always took an interest in his complaints—

Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing): Might I ask a question? I hope the right hon. Gentleman applies his argument only to this limited matter, because I do not know whether he is aware of the seriousness of the statement that he has made. If he suggests that the use of this House is no longer what it was, the


ultimate outcome of the argument is that we should have an immediate General Election.

Mr. Cooper: What I do say is that there are limits, and when I come afterwards to explain, I am sure that the Noble Lord will agree with me that these are not subjects with which Members of Parliament are fitted to deal. For two and a-half months this system has been in active operation. I have not had one single letter from a Member of Parliament complaining about it. My hon. and gallant Friend can bring forward as his only evidence of the state of mind of the people throughout the country one commissionaire from a restaurant, who knows who he is and agrees with him. Not only have hon. Members received no letters—and I await contradiction, but there is more—

Mr. Herbert: May I point out that what the right hon. Gentleman says now rather justifies the function of the Press? May I ask him a question on an important point which I tried to put before? Is or is not the mass observation movement, and particularly the leader of it, Mr. Tom Harrisson, largely a member of his Ministry?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member has punctuated this Debate with interruptions. It has been said that the usefulness of the Press has been challenged, because this was brought to the attention of Members of Parliament, but is it not the fact that Members of Parliament, who are supposed to represent their constituents, have had to wait until the whole thing was started by the Press as a Press stunt? It was not until the attention of hon. Members was drawn to the matter that they took any interest in it at all. If there are any snoopers in the world, they are employed by the Press. We know the tact and consideration with which they come into houses of mourning and ring up at awkward hours and make inquiries. In spite of this fact, it took the Press—who are ahead of my hon. Friend by a day or two—two and a half months to discover this "scandal." It has been going on since the middle of May. It was only the end of last week that the Press discovered it, and all the papers discovered it simultaneously. At this moment there is very little news to report. It is often the way in happier times, when it is called the "silly season." The Press

is shorter of news now than it was in happier times. There is no sporting news and very little theatrical news. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman often brings comedy into Debates, but this is not a time for comedy. The Press has been obliged to fall back upon what plainly is a stunt. It can and often does provide sources of information for the country and the Government, but unhappy is the Government which relies solely on the Press for its sources of information.
You have only to consider the way in which this particular campaign has been conducted by one part of the Press to realise that those newspapers are unworthy to be entrusted with any important matter. The five newspapers which have been running this campaign in London reported to-day what took place in the House of Commons. It was the first opportunity I had had to make any explanation with regard to the stunt which began last weekend—on Friday or Saturday, I think. Not one of those five newspapers printed my reply; not one of them stated that the scheme was in operation before I reached the Ministry. Papers that carry on a controversy in such an unworthy, unfair and dishonest manner cannot be considered a suitable means of information, upon which the Government or the public or the House of Commons can rely. The importance of discovering public opinion cannot be over-estimated. Lord Bryce said once:
The main difficulty of forming an opinion is that of finding public opinion out. Organs of opinion have been engaged in representing their own views as those of the people.
How true that is to-day. In this country we have a comparatively small Press. Each represents the views of perhaps one individual. All attempt to represent those views as being the views of the country. Lord Bryce held that the only way of finding out opinion was to hold an election. We are debarred at present from holding an election. Nobody wishes to interfere with that arrangement. We hope it will continue throughout the war. But there is a new method which did not exist in Lord Bryce's day: a scientific method of discovering public opinion. It has developed with extraordinary rapidity in quite recent years. My hon. and gallant Friend, who relies so much on the "Daily Mail" for his opinions—

Sir A. Southby: That is a little unworthy. I do not rely on any paper for my opinions.

Mr. Cooper: I do not wish to insult the hon. and gallant Member. His resentment is rather a reflection on the "Daily Mail." One of the instances to which he referred, and upon which other hon. Members have corrected him, came from the "Daily Mail" to-day. It was the straw vote of the "Literary Digest," which proved to be two or three thousand votes wrong. Other hon. Members have pointed out that modern methods achieved results which proved to be within 6 per cent. right. And before the voting took place Dr. Gallup foretold, by his method, that the "Literary Digest" would be wrong, and he gave the figure by which they would be wrong, to within 1 per cent. That is an interesting commentary on the way in which this method can be developed.
I want to say a word now on how this method has been developed in the Ministry. It was decided that it was important that we should have accurate information on certain subjects. We, therefore, set up, under the auspices of the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, a body to which the name was given of War-Time Social Survey. We set it up under the auspices of that body in order that it should be independent of the Ministry. It was appointed not by us, but by a distinguished professor of the University of London. "Qualified people" have been referred to. What are qualified people? People who have been engaged either in social work or in merchant concerns. The expense of this experiment, about which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) was so indignant—he is not here this evening—was, for the month of June, £1,007. I can give detailed figures to anybody who wants to know the number of people employed and the salaries paid. The highest salary paid is £10 a week. These workers receive certain names which are taken at random in different districts from time to time. They call at the houses of the people. They have certain questions which they have been given to ask. They fill in the answers given to the questions, and, before they return them to the Ministry, they are tabulated. The names of the various people are so dealt

with as not to be known even inside the Ministry of Information.
We are aware of the real danger of people thinking that this is some frightening shadow of the Gestapo, especially at the present time. I am fully aware of that danger, but so far the only complaint we have had—and I am very glad we have had it—has come from a policeman. It was the extraordinary outburst of the chief constable of Derby this morning to which reference has already been made. I hope that will clear people's minds of any ideas they may have had as to a connection between this experiment and the police. It has been a most useful tribute to us in that respect. Of the people who have, so far, been visited only 2 per cent. have made any objection to these questions. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) made a most extraordinary suggestion. He stressed the importance of obtaining information on the subject but suggested another way of doing it, namely, by using the services of hospital nurses. I think that would really look like a system of espionage. Under the present arrangement people say, frankly, that they come from the Ministry of Information and desire to ask certain questions and to find out opinions on certain matters.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. Gentleman has made very good play with the suggestion which I made, but it was only a very small part of a much wider suggestion by the Press and Members of Parliament.

Mr. Cooper: That you should employ various people who have other activities, to perform this activity on behalf of the State is one of the most dangerous things that could happen.
I want to say something about the various kinds of opinions that have been found out by this survey. One was a very small thing but one that was worth finding out. The Ministry of Food wanted to ascertain the other day whether people would prefer to obtain their milk a little cheaper and have to fetch it themselves, or pay a small extra sum and have it delivered at their houses. We made inquiries in 11 different industrial districts—and there was no difference in the various districts—and we obtained a return of over 69 per cent. that they would prefer it a little cheaper and fetch it.
That was a small thing which required to be done. A more interesting investigation, from the scientific point of view, was that, earlier in the year, the Ministry of Food were running a series of talks on the B.B.C. which was called "The Kitchen Front," describing how food could be saved by modern methods of cooking and how, in various recipes, less palatable dishes could be made more palatable and so on.
Then they wanted to find out how many people listened to the broadcast and how many housewives had put the advice into practice. Inquiry was made of people with two different sets of incomes—those over £4 a week, and those below. The result was that a much larger number of the better off people listened because they had radios of their own or because they had access to radios, but among the poorer classes a much larger proportion really took the advice and tried the recipes. The Minister was thus assured that the people for whom the broadcasts were designed were benefiting by the advice, and he was later able to direct other methods for use by the poorer people.

Sir Herbert Williams: Do I understand from that that a large number of poor people have no radio sets?

Mr. Cooper: If the hon. Member thinks that everybody in the country can afford a radio set, then he is more of an optimist than I believed. My hon. and gallant Friend asked why, if this system was so useful, we had not provided better advice with regard to the Silent Column. Well, I will make a confession. Our Home Intelligence Division of the Ministry received these reports and advised against the Silent Column. They thought it would be a mistake, and I regret to say now that their advice was overlooked. There was one other kind of inquiry made, as to whether the people of the country resented music hall entertainments on the wireless. It was found that 90 per cent. approved, which proves the very great value of the entertainments and how they are very much appreciated by a large section of the community.

Mr. MacLaren: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish a misrepresentation to go out. What I did criticise was the bastard form of Yankee low-down jazz music. I said that

if instead of that pseudo-variety we had our own native talent it could have given us clean variety instead of the stuff we have had to tolerate.

Mr. Cooper: I am sorry if I have misrepresented my hon. Friend but there is a good deal of entertainment on the radio which people do very much enjoy. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), in the concluding remarks of his able and useful speech, suggested that we should make public the knowledge we have obtained by this method available to Members of Parliament. I am prepared to do my best to meet the hon. Baronet, although I do not think I can go so far as to lay the reports on the Table of the House. That would go near to publishing them, and they very often do contain information of a confidential character. I am always ready to show such reports to Members if they come to the Ministry. That this system is useful I think I have demonstrated. The only reason there could be for not adopting it is the fear that it would upset the public mind, and that people would think it was in some way connected with the police, but we have no evidence to show that there is any such fear. None has been produced this evening, and I do not believe that it exists. We all know from our own experience of canvassing—a very different activity—that the majority of the people whose houses are invaded by canvassers are, on the whole, glad to see them. Their usual complaint, I think, is that "No one has been down our street; when are they coming to us?" There you are canvassing for one party, and you expect occasionally to have the door slammed in your face, but that seldom happens. More often than not a man says, "I am not going to vote for you, but I am prepared to have a talk with you." The majority of people like it. They are open to argument. I do not believe for a moment that this survey is disturbing the public mind in any way. I believe that it is serving a useful purpose. This is a subject upon which the Government ought to have information and the information is of great value. The method is working well and has not caused any perturbation in the public mind, and until someone can suggest a better method of obtaining information which is needed, I shall advise the Government to continue to employ it.

Mr. Davidson: When the information is completely collated and gathered together, is it submitted to any Government Department? What happens to it?

Mr. Cooper: If it contains matter likely to be useful to a Ministry such as the Ministry of Food or the Board of Trade, it is communicated to them at once, but it is not circulated to the Departments.

Mr. Mander: What is Harrisson's exact position?

Mr. Cooper: Mass Observation is, I understand, privately run and controlled. We have once or twice applied to it for statistical information on certain subjects which it has been able to furnish, information which it was not worth while setting up a special inquiry to obtain.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a large proportion of the working people had not got radio sets. The bulk of the working class have radio sets, and therefore his statement that the analysis showed that those who had sets did this, and those who had not sets did not, is unadulterated nonsense. It is difficult now to enter any house where they have not a radio set. I would ask his snoopers, if they still have time to spare, to find out whether people have radio sets.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute before Eleven o'Clock until Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.